argu 4 求拍！ 谢谢，狠拍

lucy003UID: 2456093

In the on-line discussion about two local real estate firms, the arguer claims that Adams Realty is superior than Fitch Realty by comparing the number of real estate agents, annual revenue, average sale price and time used to sell a house of the two companies. It seems reasonable at first glance, however, after a thorough analysis, I do believe that the arguer's conclusion is not trustworthy for this argument has several critical logical fallacies.


Firstly, the arguer points out that the real estate agents in F firm is fewer compared with A firm, besides，some of them only work part-time. In my viewpoint, nevertheless, the number of employee can not decide the total working efficiency. Actually, company with fewer employees can still maintain high working outcome if they organize the workload scientifically. In addition, part-time job can not absolutely decide the capability of the real estate agents.



Secondly, the arguer says that A firm's revenue is twice as high as that of F firm, regrettably, this point fails to show that A firm is better at selling house than F firm. The high revenue of A firm may just a result of higher charge of its costumers. Another statement that the higher average selling price by A firm can only prove that A firm is good at dealing with high price houses while F firm is good at low price houses. Without a direct and clear comparison of selling the same house between the two firms, the arguer can not convince us that A firm can help costumers make more profit by selling houses at a higher price than F firm.



Finally, the arguer tries to make us believe by using his personal experience. Unfortunately, however, the point in this experience is even weaker than the former ones. As is known to all, the real estate market of last year is quite different from that of 10 years ago. And social-economical situation has a direct influence on the house market, such as the demand in house 10 years ago may be quite small, the government may carry out new policy in inciting house dealing last year and so on. Obviously, the unfairly and vague compare can not stand through our analysis.


From what has been discussed above, it is not difficult to find that the conclusion of this discussion is lack of convincing support. Without any actual and discreet compare of the two firms' sale ability, the arguer's claim is nothing but an un-thoughtful consideration.   416