【Big Fish】3月7日Argument241-By rachelwang712

rachelwang712UID: 2757860

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."
----------------
提纲
1八年前可能有不同的经济形势，不具有可比性，而且delany去年的情况也没有具体的数据，只说了更快。也许也只有一半
2更多的办公人员和公司规模不代表更高的办事效率和更好的办事标准
3dalany可能针对的客户本身就有较高的能力，而walsh则相对低端，不一定平均用时就代表XYZ的客户用这个也会用时比较少
---------------
The memo, though well-presented, is weak in its reasoning. The arguer's careless comparison between how Delany has been doing last year and how Walsh performed eight years from now, misleading belief that a larger company can do a better job and lean inspection into the differences of targeting clients of these two companies undermine his argument.
To begin with, the criticism the arguer put on Walsh eight years ago is convincing enough to lead to the point that Delany outperforms Walsh. It is possible that eight years ago the whole industry was suffering economic recession when generally it was difficult for a person to find a job with or without professional consult. If that is true, Walsh should not take the blame. Also, the arguer only describes employees using Delany as quicker to be hired but he will need to provide more precise information of the length of time it takes them exactly to do so. Actually we don't know how many staff using Delany find their jobs within the first year. Is it more than or fewer than 50% as Walsh did? Clearly it will be a great difference. So a more careful research over the employment rate in Walsh eight years ago nd Delany last year as well as consideration of economic environment when the two personnel firms provide services are neede.
Furthermore, the notion that Delany owns more staff and offices is by no means supportive for the arguer's point. To be exact, the size of a company has no necessary relation with its performance. Endless stories have told us how giants fell and how smaller ones succeed. In order to evaluate a firm as the arguer is trying to do in the memo, one should lay emphasis on the effeciency and ability rather than the number of the firm's employees. However, the memo does not mention anything regarding these criteria, thus being quite feeble in its arguing.
Finally, the statistics the memo cites about the time clients of the two companies spent on finding their jobs respectively does not guarantee a promising future if XYZ choose Delany unless more information about the clients mentioned here are provided. Chances are that the clients of Delany are basically more abled than those of Walsh, which means it is quite natural that they can get employment faster and better than the former ones. If that is the case, no one can point out that Delany is superior to Walsh even with the time difference. So if the arguer want to make the right choice, he is suggested to check targeting clients of these two firms and use the one that helps his staff most. In other words, if his staff are less prominent, he might choose the one that targets this kind of clients rather than the one whose clients find jobs more quickly overall.
To conlude, the memo won't be valuable in the XYZ company's decision-making process unless the arguer include more specific information to address the logical loops I talk about here above. And I strongly advise the board of the company to whom the memo will be presented think about the issue twice before rushing to the final decision.

kingwyf87UID: 2457409

The memo, though well-presented, is weak in its reasoning. The arguer's careless comparison between how Delany has been doing last year and how Walsh performed eight years from now, misleading belief that a larger company can do a better job and lean inspection into the differences of targeting clients of these two companies undermine(s) his argument.（如果这个作为攻击的第一段内容是不是有点少了？）

To begin with,（上面一个到底是总说吗？如果不是的话用这个不合适啊，我感觉上下段没有逻辑联系） the criticism the arguer（两个主语？） put on Walsh eight years ago is convincing enough to lead to the point that Delany outperforms Walsh.（啊？真是第一段总说，那可以这样写 但第一和第三总没有逻辑联系吧？所以还是有问题啊） It is possible that eight years ago the whole industry was suffering economic recession (when generally it was difficult), which may lead to difficulties for people (a person) to find a job with or without professional consult. If that is true, Walsh should not take the blame(用被动). Also, the arguer only describes employees using Delany as quicker to be hired but he will be required(need) to provide more supporting (precise) information of how much (the length of ) time it takes them exactly to do so. Actually we don't know how many staff using Delany (to) find their jobs within the first year. Is it more than or fewer than 50% as Walsh did? Clearly it will be a great difference. So a more careful research over the employment rate in Walsh eight years ago nd（?） Delany last year as well as consideration of economic environment when the two personnel firms provide services are （needed）.

Furthermore, the notion that Delany owns more staff and offices is by no means supportive for the arguer's point. To be exact, the size (scale) of a company has no necessary relation with its performance. Endless stories have told us how many giant companies fell and how many smaller ones succeed. In order to evaluate a firm as the arguer is trying to do in the memo, one should lay emphasis on the (efficiency) and ability rather than the number of the firm's employees.(但确实员工多一些代表公司的发展好 你可以从另一个角度说比如小公司专注做 而大公司精力分散投入的人力反而少) However, the memo does not mention anything regarding these criteria, thus being quite feeble in its arguing.

Finally, the statistics the memo （怎么又俩并列主语？） cites about the time clients of the two companies spent on finding their jobs respectively does not guarantee a promising future if XYZ choose Delany unless more information about the clients mentioned here are provided. Chances are that the clients of Delany are basically more abled（？） than those of Walsh, which means it is quite natural that they can get employment faster and better than the former ones. If that is the case, no one can point out that Delany is superior to Walsh even（删） with the time difference. So if the arguer want(s) to make the right choice, he is suggested to check targeting clients of these two firms and use the one that helps his staff most. In other words, if his staff(s) are less prominent, he might choose the one that targets this kind of clients rather than the one whose clients find jobs more quickly overall.

To conlude, the memo won't be valuable in the XYZ company's decision-making process unless the arguer include more specific information to address the logical loops I talk about here above(?这句话用的咋这么搞笑呢 哈哈 改成被动吧). And I strongly advise the board of the company to whom the memo will be presented think about the issue twice before rushing to the final decision.


从文章的语言上来说不如你的I，存在着较多的词汇、语法错误。逻辑上还可以，但可以挖掘更多的攻击点，比如文章之比了时间快这一点但不一定找的久的工作就找的不好，可能找的快的反而找的好，诸如此类还用很多我就不一一列举了。

建议：
（1）还有很长时间的准备，建议每篇Ａ尽可能挑出所有的错误，Ｉ要积累例证和语言表达。
（2）在提交作业时现在word里检查一下拼写和明显的语言错误，另外没改完认真修改习作，不要写完就完了，要认真总结，现阶段你要提高质量不要追求速度。