ARGUMENT241!!!有拍必回！！！

86145787UID: 2672301

241
"When XYZ lays off employees, it pays Delany Personnel Firm to offer those employees assistance in creating resumès 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."


WORDS: 216
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-3-3 2:13:57

Grounding on the invalid conclusion that laid-off employees have benefited greatly from Delany's services, basing on the not cogent results in the past, the author accordingly asserts that it would be a mistake to use Walsh Personnel Firm in place of D. However, there are several reasons why this conclusion is not compelling.

First of all, author asserts that laid-off employees have benefited greatly from D's service, because those employees who used D found jobs much more quickly than those who did not last year, but fails to preclude other reasons might lead to this outcome. For example, it is possible that the laid-off employees used D having no intention of hunting job at all, so it is reasonable for those who want to find jobs used D’s service to get new jobs. Thus, even if the D`s service was useless, the number of workers who used D`s service would undoubtedly be greater. In addition, employees who use D might have strong intention and comprehensive and sufficient preparation to hunting job, therefore, in this condition, it is more possible to gaining new jobs for them. Thus, the quicker time to find jobs of employees who used D cannot support and back the conclusion of that laid-off employees have benefited greatly.

Second, even if we concede that those laid-off employees have benefited greatly from D's services, this does not necessarily mean that it is a mistake to use the less-expensive WPF in place of D, because the statistics that only half workers could find jobs used WPF`s service eight years ago cannot used to prove that the WPF`s service is also bad now. In addition, even if that statistics of half workers found job is reliable, consider that worse economical situation deeply inhibited the employment rate at that time, and the fact of half worker who found jobs is pretty pleasing. In fact, it is relatively possible that the employment rate of workers who used D`s service was much lower.

Finally, even if we accept the conclusion concluded by the low employment rate of WPF eight years ago, we cannot assume that D is superior because of its bigger staff and larger number of branch offices. There are a myriad of variables that can contribute to distinguish whether a company D is good or not, however, the number of people find jobs after using this company`s service is what we are really concerned about. The bigger staff and larger number of branch offices of the company only can decide the size of it, but not the ability of providing better training for the job hunting for its customers.

In sum, although company D is relatively better in the past for its high employment rate of its customers, and its bigger size, these evidences cannot conclude that it is a mistake to use WPF in place of company D.