argument233修路问题~~有拍必回

ella_dylUID: 2595060

233
The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a company that builds shopping malls throughout the country.
"The surface of a section of Route 101, paved two years ago by McAdam Road Builders, is now badly cracked and marred by dangerous potholes. In another part of the state, a section of Route 66, paved by Appian Roadways more than four years ago, is still in good condition. Appian Roadways has recently purchased state-of-the-art paving machinery, and it has hired a new quality-control manager. Because of its superior work and commitment to quality, we should contract with Appian Roadways rather than McAdam Road Builders to construct the access roads for all our new shopping malls."（443）

In the memo, the vice president advocates that they should contract with Appian Roadways rather than McAdam Road Builders to build the access roads for their new shopping malls. To justify this claim, the author cites that the section of Route 101 constructed by McAdam is badly cracked, while another section built by Appian is still in good condition. He also points out that Appian recently has made several advantages. Although this argument might seem reasonable at first glance, it is in fact ill-conceived.

The threshold problem with this argument is that the arguer unfairly blames the cracked section of Route 101 on the construction quality of McAdam Road Builders. Nevertheless, many other factors may influence road condition. Perhaps the section that McAdam repaved is located in an area where suffers from extreme climate or heavy traffic burden. Any of these scenarios, if true, would cast considerable doubt on the argument’s conclusion. Moreover, we do not know if the factors mentioned above are exactly the same in Route 101 and Route 66. So it is too hasty to make a judgment.

Even assuming that McAdam is responsible for the damaged section, we are not informed overall road condition of Route 101. It is entirely possible that the whole condition of Route 101 is superior to that of Route 66. Additionally, no evidence is provided that the two routes are representative for the two companies. Thus, road condition of Route 101 and Route 66 are unpersuasive to be used to assess the construction quality of two companies.

Granted that the quality of routes paved by Appian is superior, we cannot guarantee Appian could also do an excellent job in constructing the access roads for shopping malls.The two constructions may be entirely different projects, requiring disparate equipment, materials and workers. Moreover, we are not informed that Appian’s new equipment will be applied in this construction. Neither do we know if the new manager will be in charge. Therefore, in a totally new area, we can not substantiate that Appian have obvious advantages over McAdam.

To sum up, the arguer's argument is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. In order to draw a more reliable conclusion, the author should provide more persuasive evidence that it was the quality of McAdam's and Appian's work rather than one or more other factors—that resulted in the different road conditions of two sections. The author must also prove that Appian's new equipment and new manager will enhance the quality of Appian's work in constructing the access roads for shopping malls at a higher level than McAdam's work.