Argument179 求拍~

algabraUID: 2748722

非常感谢！

TOPIC: ARGUMENT179 - The following is a memorandum written by the director of personnel to the president of the Cedar Corporation.

"It would be a mistake to rehire the Good-Taste Company to supply the food in our employee cafeteria next year. It is the second most expensive caterer in the city. In addition, its prices have risen in each of the last three years, and it refuses to provide meals for people on special diets. Just last month three employees complained to me that they no longer eat in the cafeteria because they find the experience 'unbearable.' Our company should instead hire Discount Foods. Discount is a family-owned local company and it offers a varied menu of fish and poultry. I recently tasted a sample lunch at one of the many companies that Discount serves and it was delicious-an indication that hiring Discount will lead to improved employee satisfaction."

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－

It seems reasonable at the first glance that Discount Foods (DF) is better than Good-Taste Company (GT). The director has pointed out that the latter is expensive and considered "unbearable", and refuses to provide meals for people on special diets, while the former supplies delicious food. However, I find this argument unconvincing for failing to examine several important details carefully.

First, the director fails to explain how to reach the conclusion that GT is the second most expensive caterer in the city. Does it ranked by average price of food in this company, or the highest price, or the price for the Cedar Corporation (CC)? Actually, only the last figure may influence the decision of CC directly and should be considered seriously. Pitifully, relevant information is omitted in the argument.

Second, the director unfairly implies that the rising prices of GT are abnormal. It is very likely that the economy in the city has been suffering from inflation that all prices for living materials are increasing, and every company raises its prices. The arguer fails to show that GT has raised the prices much more sharply than the general level. Furthermore, perhaps GT has provided new services during the past three years, which increase costs and therefore the prices. The arguer does not exclude this possibility.

Third, a sample of 3 employees may be too small to present the staff of CC. Maybe they have special tastes which difficult to satisfy, or they may be epicures who are extremely critical about the quality of food. The director should investigate the attitude of all employees towards GT's food first. The investigation result will serve as a strong evidence for decision-making.

Fourth, the director unfairly ascribes the dissatisfaction of the 3 employees to GT's food while they do not refer to the food explicitly, neglecting other possible reasons. For example, the counters may be insufficient so that employees suffer from long queues and become impatient. The cafeteria is too crowded and noisy for people to enjoy meals. These affecting factors have no relations with food supplied by GT. The director should take all these factors into consideration.

Fifth, the director ignores a fatal factor, safety, for the cafeteria. Since DF is a family owned local company, its sales may be relatively small and it may be harder for DF to ensure fresh materials and sanitation during cooking processes than for GT. The director must assure DF is capable of providing safe food before hiring it as the provider.

At last, a single sample lunch can hardly represent the real level of DF's food. It is reasonable to suppose that sample lunches are always the best ones prepared by a company, as they are designed to attract customers. What is the average standard of lunches in DF? Can DF keep the high quality of sample lunches for long time? They remain questions. So it is hasty to consider DF as a better choice than GT just by a sample lunch.

To sum up, those flaws discussed above significantly weaken the conclusion. After supplementing sufficient information and expelling other possible factors, the director will be able to reach a valid conclusion.

algabraUID: 2748722

有没有人帮忙看看呀？ 谢谢!

nieyongUID: 2742661

回拍啦！！

It seems reasonable at the first glance that Discount Foods (DF) is better than Good-Taste Company (GT). The director has pointed out that the latter is expensive and considered "unbearable", and refuses to provide meals for people on special diets, while the former supplies delicious food (with a varied menu of fish and poultry,这一点我觉得不能漏掉). However, I find this argument unconvincing for failing to examine several important details carefully.

First, the director fails to explain how to reach the conclusion that GT is the second most expensive caterer in the city. Does it ranked by average price of food in this company, or the highest price, or the price for the Cedar Corporation (CC)? Actually, only the last figure may influence the decision of CC directly and should be considered seriously. Pitifully, relevant information is omitted in the argument.

Second, the director unfairly implies that the rising prices of GT are abnormal. It is very likely that the economy in the city has been suffering from inflation that all prices for living materials are increasing, and every company raises its prices. The arguer fails to show that GT has raised the prices much more sharply than the general level. Furthermore, perhaps GT has provided new services during the past three years, which increase costs and therefore the prices. The arguer does not exclude this possibility. （还可以说一点就是，原来价格的基数没告诉，一定的增长不能说明问题）
Third, a sample of 3 employees may be too small to present the staff of CC. Maybe they have special tastes which difficult to satisfy, or they may be epicures who are extremely critical about the quality of food. The director should investigate the attitude of all employees towards GT's food first. The investigation result will serve as a strong evidence for decision-making.（这段还可以表述为对调查样本是否足够大的质疑）

Fourth, the director unfairly ascribes the dissatisfaction of the 3 employees to GT's food while they do not refer to the food explicitly, neglecting other possible reasons. For example, the counters may be insufficient so that employees suffer from long queues and become impatient. The cafeteria is too crowded and noisy for people to enjoy meals. These affecting factors have no relations with food supplied by GT. The director should take all these factors into consideration. （其实也可以表述为，这三人的complaint是其心中subjective ideas，因为很主观，所以说明不了问题）

Fifth, the director ignores a fatal factor, safety, for the cafeteria. Since DF is a family owned local company, its sales may be relatively small and it may be harder for DF to ensure fresh materials and sanitation during cooking processes than for GT. The director must assure DF is capable of providing safe food before hiring it as the provider.

At last, a single sample lunch can hardly represent the real level of DF's food. It is reasonable to suppose that sample lunches are always the best ones prepared by a company, as they are designed to attract customers. What is the average standard of lunches in DF? Can DF keep the high quality of sample lunches for long time? They remain questions. So it is hasty to consider DF as a better choice than GT just by a sample lunch.

To sum up, those flaws discussed above significantly weaken the conclusion. After supplementing sufficient information and expelling other possible factors, the director will be able to reach a valid conclusion.（感觉总结太简略了，supplementing sufficient information and expelling other possible factors这个是任何阿狗都可以说的，没有针对这篇文章的建议啊~~）

总的来说写的很不错。错误找得太全面了，分的段过多。我觉得在限时的情况下这样的写作不是太容易。不过也可能是我打字速度太慢了~

algabraUID: 2748722

3# nieyong

谢谢你的建议，这篇是我不限时写的，限时的话应该写不了这么多了