argement241 人生除考试外写的最后一篇AW 有拍必回~

nieyongUID: 2742661

TOPIC: ARGUMENT241 - The following appeared in a memo at the XYZ company.
请各位高手猛拍，谢谢~

"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."
WORDS: 425+60
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010/3/15 9:22:12
提纲：
1.
强加因果：DPF的成功与其本身没有必然关系
2.
WPF以前的失败，不一定以后也是
3.
Bigger and larger不一定就好
4.
最后一句的统计数据不可信。

In the argument, the author concludes that XYZ Company should pay Delany Personal Firm (DPF) to assist its lay-off workers in hunting for jobs. To support his conclusion, the author cites the successful experience last year with DPF, while XYZ Company had failure in cooperation with Walsh Personal Firm (WPF) eight years ago. Moreover, DPF has more staff and branch offices. Also, the author indicates that DPF's client took shorter time in seeking jobs. Well-presented as it is, however, careful examination of the evidence provided reveals that it lends little credible support to the author's conclusion.


A threshold problem involves the correlation between DPF's service and more jobs found. Actually, the fact that DPF's service alone cannot amount to finding more jobs. It is highly possible that the employee's quality has improved or the economic conditions of the society are better now. If this is the case, then we cannot draw a causal relationship between the two.


Secondly, even assuming that the cause-and-effect relationship does exist, the author's conclusion is based on the further assumption that the failure experience with WPF eight years ago will continue in the future. Nevertheless, if WPF has changed its leadership or the method it used to train the employees has improved, things may be totally different. These scenarios, if true, may cast serious doubt upon the author's conclusion.


Furthermore, the author’s conclusion is still based on make a soundless equation between higher quality and larger quantity. However, the author fails to substantiate this assumption. It may be that bigger staff and larger number of branch offices could result in delinquency or low productivity. Also more staff and branch offices consume more money, and that may increase the burden both on WPF and XYZ Company. Because the author offers no evidence to rule out such interpretations, conclusions cannot be drawn that DPF is better worth paying.


Last but not the least, even if large quantities indeed lead to higher quality, but the validity of the statistics of the clients in each firm is still dubious. First, we cannot find any sign of procedures for sampling, thus doubting whether there is a large enough size of the samples. For example, if the survey only contains 50 clients of each firm out of the total population of 500, then any evidence obtained from it is untenable. Also is it for the average clients, or just the excellent ones? If it is ambiguous, the author's conclusion is unconvincing.


On all account, the author's conclusion is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it, the author should cite others proper factors that could lead to finding more jobs. Moreover, to strengthen the logic of the argument, the author should provide more evidence to substantiate the higher quality based on larger and bigger quantities. To better assess the conclusion, we would need more details about the samples and representativeness of the statistics to ensure the validity.

hailidUID: 2744864

鼓励下，不错。5分肯定有了。就是开头是不是应该说，作者的结论是拒绝与W合作，坚持继续与D合作。