[Big Fish]03月07日Argument214--By swolf54

swolf54UID: 2421931

TOPIC: 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."


In this memo, the author argues that it is a mistake for XYZ Company to use the less-expensive Walsh Personnel Firm in place of Delany to assist its laid-off employees to create resumes and develop interviewing skills to find job. To strengthen his conclusion, he points out the past experience and uses two comparisons between Delany and Walsh. Nevertheless, however convincible this argument appears, it makes several vital mistakes and makes me maintain skeptical about it.
At first, the arguer concludes that Delany Personal Firm helps a lot based on the fact that, last year, those laid-off employees who used Delany found jobs much more quickly than did those who did not. However, the arguer doesn't provide enough information about the differences between the ones using Delany and those who didn't.  It is entirely possible that those who used Delany's service are higher skilled and more knowledgeable, so that their high efficiency in finding new works owned much themselves, rather than Delany's service. However, those workers who didn't turn Delany for help may be low skilled and even illiteracy, thus it is naturally for them to be hard in finding job. Due to the factors mentioned above, employees’ success in finding job may be irrelevant to Delany's work.
Besides, even if I concede that those firms do helps in finding new jobs, the author cannot hastily claims that, choosing less-expensive Walsh is a mistake. To support, he mentioned that eight years ago, only half of the workers they laid off can find jobs at that time. However, he fails to consider the specific situation of that time. Perhaps there was an economy crisis at that time, which makes everyone hard to find a job. Under such circumstance, it should be regarded as an excellent work in helping employees to find a job. Even admittedly, Walsh was inferior to Delany eight years before, it is unequal to infer that it is still inferior to Delany today; after all, during a sufficiently long interim period, the situation might have been changed. And the longer the interval, the less reliable is the conclusion.
At last, the arguer fails to prove that a bigger staff and larger number of branch offices means Delany is clearly superior to Walsh. In fact, more stuffs may indicates that Delany's working efficiency is poor than Walsh.
In conclusion, the arguer fails to make sound logic in sustaining his assertion. Without more information about the current condition about the two firms and a convincing comparison of the past works done by them, it is hard to convince me that choosing Walsh Company is a mistake.

rachelwang712UID: 2757860

论述的点都到了，但是我觉得用词不够地道，而且有些点没有论述彻底。可以多一点alternative