argument241 倒计时6天 by child

hurongchildUID: 2595535

题目：ARGUMENT241 - The following appeared in a memo at the XYZ company.

"When XYZ lays off employees, it pays Delany Personnel Firm to offer those employees assistance in creating resumés and developing interviewing skills, if they so desire. Laid-off employees have benefited greatly from Delany's services: last year those who used Delany found jobs much more quickly than did those who did not. Recently, it has been proposed that we use the less-expensive Walsh Personnel Firm in place of Delany. This would be a mistake because eight years ago, when XYZ was using Walsh, only half of the workers we laid off at that time found jobs within a year. Moreover, Delany is clearly superior, as evidenced by its bigger staff and larger number of branch offices. After all, last year Delany's clients took an average of six months to find jobs, whereas Walsh's clients took nine."
字数：390
用时：0:28:00
日期：2010-2-23

This argument concludes it is a mistake to use the Walsh Personnel Firm (WF) to give laid-off employees assistance. To support its conclusion, the argument points out the facts that the laid-off employees who use Delany found jobs quicker than those who did not. It also cited the fact that eight years ago only half of the laid-off workers found jobs within a year. However, this argument is logically unconvincing in several facets.

Firstly, that the Delany Firm (DF) is effective in helping laid-off employees to find jobs is not proved by enough evidence. The mere fact that the laid-off employees who use Delany found jobs quicker than those who did not does not mean that DF is helpful. It is entirely possible that the laid-off who chose to use DF were more excellent, or more willing to find a job, and therefore they found the jobs easier, while the less able and excellent laid-off workers chose to not use it. Moreover, it is also possible that some other factors are the real reason why they found jobs easier. For example, their higher spirit and enthusiasm which might not be the results of the assistance.

Secondly, even if DF is effective in assisting the laid-off workers find jobs, it does not necessarily mean that DF is more effective than WF. On one hand, the argument provides no clear evidence that WF is not effective in helping people. The mere fact that only half of the laid-off worker found jobs by assistance from WF eight years ago does not suffice to prove that WF is unhelpful at that time. The argument does not provide how many laid-off workers used the WF, and how many workers who use the WF found jobs within a year. If only half of the laid-off workers used the WF, and all of them found jobs within a year, WF is quite helpful. Also, the situation of eight years ago is quite different from today. Perhaps at that time, most laid-off workers take more than a year to find a job, because the less developed economy.

On the other hand, the argument does not provide strong evidence that DF is indeed superior to WF. The bigger staff and larger number of branch offices of DF do not suffice a more efficient working ability because it is possible that they operate in a more complex way; while WF has higher efficiency due to their small staff. Also, that DF's clients took an average of six months to find jobs while WF's took nine does not suffice the clients of DF find better jobs than WF. The speed of finding jobs is not the only factor to take into account—the salary paid is also of significance. If WF’s clients took a longer time to find a job but the salary paid to the clients is considerably higher, WF is also help to the laid-0ff workers and perhaps even better choice than DF.

Finally, even though DF is indeed superior, there is no necessity that the XYZ should not hire the WF. The efficiency of the company is not the only consideration of determining which company to hire, there some other factors such as expense, fame and serving quality. It is pointed out that WF is less expensive than DF, and if XYZ is in financial difficulty, it might be a good choice to choose WF to cut down their budget.

In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logical at first glance, has several flaws. It could be improved by providing evidence that DF is indeed effective in helping laid-off workers find jobs. It could be further improved by proving that WF is unhelpful and inferior to DF.