argument171 谢谢

zylpascalUID: 2710054

ARGUMENT171 - The following appeared in a memo from the marketing director of Bargain
Brand Cereals.
"One year ago we introduced our first product, 'Bargain Brand' breakfast cereal. Our
very low prices quickly drew many customers away from the top-selling cereal companies.
Although the companies producing the top brands have since tried to compete with us by
lowering their prices, and although several plan to introduce their own budget brands,
not once have we needed to raise our prices to continue making a profit. Given our
success selling cereal, Bargain Brand should now expand its business and begin
marketing other low-priced food products as quickly as possible."




In this argument the author recommends that his company could adopt a strategy of enlarging the market shares of the ''Bargain Brand" and at the meantime exploit some other profit areas of low-priced food to ensure the
competence of the company . While, as far as I am concerned, there is many illogical flaws during the author's premise and course of drawing his plausible conclusion.

To begin with, the date is too old--"one year ago", so that it is not persuasive to support the author's following statement and decision made for future. In this one year period, many things could happen and change. Thus, the date background has weaken the credibility of the comparing with other companies for the present time. Moreover, the demography character of the customers mentioned in the argument
who were drawn from the top-selling company is not presented too. Thus, the factual reason for which the customers "renegade"
their previous sellers seems specious, that is, there exists a possibility that the consumers who prefer the "Bargain Brand" only
make their choices based on their own afford ability--not based on the real quality of the commodities.

In the second place, considering those companies which intend or have performed low-price marketing strategy towards the author' company, it is probably that the consumers would turn back, which means to squeeze the profits margins of the "Bargain Brand". That is easy to understand. What a rational buyer would prefer when he or she confronts two commodities with nearly the
same
price range but one is produced by top-selling company which has a good market reputes while the other does not? Apparently the former.

Finally,
the author also commits the illogical fault of " Error Analog"-- even if the cereal selling of "Bargain Brand" indeed obtained its success profits by its quality and low-price attractiveness, it does not necessarily mean the same thing for other food products. For example, maybe the author's company just has no experience in producing other food products, such as oats, breads, etc. Or the other company has a prominent advantages in other food fields.

To sum up , this argument has several unreasonable faults in its deduction and conclusion. If some particular compelling evidences were given or some details in the discoursing were displayed, then maybe we can revalue its justifications.

shohoku11wrjUID: 2731579

重要逻辑错误用粗体标注
1. 廉价麦片盈利了不代表其他廉价产品就能盈利
2. 从其他大公司抢走的大量用户对于他们来说在比例上说不定只是一小部分
3. 我们可以不通过涨价来保持持续盈利不能证明其他厂商通过降低价格来与我们竞争是失败的
4. 错误地假设了就是因为廉价所以别人才买我们的麦片
5. 我们销售'BargainBrand' breakfast cereal的成功不代表我们在所有麦片销售方面就成功了
6. 一年前销售麦片的成功不代表今后也能成功

In this argument the author recommends thathis company could adopt a strategy of enlarging the market shares of the ''BargainBrand" and at the meantime exploit/developsome other profitable areas of low-priced food to ensure the competenceof the company. While, as far as I am concerned, there is(are) manyillogical flaws/deficiencies during the author'spremise and course of drawing his or her(又有一说如果你实在只想打一个代词，那么就用she/her/herself) plausibleconclusion.

To begin with, the date is too old -- (破折号前后空格，虽然可能是无关紧要的细节)"one year ago", so that(这里不要that, 直接so; so that一般用在同一句分句中, 就是中间不需要逗号的,而so可以做连词连接两句分句) it is not persuasive tosupport the author's following statement and decision made for future. In thisone year period, many things could happen and change. Thus, the date backgroundhas weakened(weaken是动词原形) the credibility of the comparing with other companies for thepresent time. Moreover, the demography character of the customers mentioned inthe argument who were drawn from the top-selling company is not presented too.Thus, the factual reason for which the customers "renegade"
their previous sellers seems specious, thatis, there exists a possibility that the consumers who prefer the "BargainBrand" only
make their choicesbased on their own afford ability--not based on the real quality of thecommodities.

In the second place, considering thosecompanies which intend or have performed low-price marketing strategy towardsthe author' company, it is probably that the consumers would turn back to their former choices, which means to squeeze theprofits margins of the "Bargain Brand". That is easy to understand.What a rational buyer would prefer in the situation(加在这里挺重要的，因为你这句句子长了)
when he or she confronts two commodities with nearly the same price range(with the same price或者写成 in a similar pricerange) but one is produced by top-selling company whichhas a good market reputes while the other does not? Apparently the former. (Apparently, the former would be more reasonable尽量写整句吧.)

Finally,
the author also commits the illogical fault of " Error Analog"-- even if the cereal selling of "Bargain Brand" indeed obtained itssuccess profits by its quality and low-price attractiveness, it does notnecessarily mean the same thing for other food products. For example, maybe theauthor's company just has no experience in producing other food products, suchas oats, breads, etc. Or the other company has a prominent advantagesin other food fields.

To sum up, due toanalysis and reasons discussed above, this argument has severalunreasonable faults in its deduction and conclusion. If some particularcompelling evidences were given or some details in the discoursing weredisplayed, then maybe we can revalue its justifications.

1. 从你的几篇文章我发现你会有混淆名次和形容词的毛病，这个在写得时候要注意下

12333321UID: 2783751

楼上把小错都改了，我只说一下你展开的问题比如这段
To begin with, the date is too old--"one year ago", so that it is not persuasive to support the author's following statement and decision made for future. In this one year period, many things could happen and change.（什么具体的都没说怎么就出结果了？都有什么变了？为什么会变？比如说科技发展快，一年的时间经济条件生活条件等等都变了。） Thus, the date background has weaken the credibility of the comparing with other companies for the present time. Moreover, the demography character of the customers mentioned in the argument
who were drawn from the top-selling company is not presented too.（比如呢？还是要具体说，不然就很空泛，以后一定要记得，不然写成这样就是3、4分水平） Thus, the factual reason for which the customers "renegade"their previous sellers seems specious, that is, there exists a possibility that the consumers who prefer the "Bargain Brand" only make their choices based on their own afford ability--not based on the real quality of the commodities. （这些总结的地方反而可以少些，把反例和不同的情况说全别人看明白以后自然就知道为什么不对了）
你这种写法就好像是“作者忽略了很多潜在的问题，随着时间很多东西都变了，所以结果可能有很多种，带来的影响也不一定，所以人们不能相信作者”这样一看简直就都是废话了对吧（当然我是夸张的提炼出来，你写的要比这个好，呵呵）要把每个问题都说细，说具体才行
我觉得你用词语句问题都不大，可以看出来基础不错，就是注意展开就好了。
加油

zylpascalUID: 2710054

呵呵 的确都是废话  谢谢了

zylpascalUID: 2710054

谢谢这位仁兄的指点 说实话前段时间一直在看英专的写作修辞学 所以 诚如你所言 我的造句用词还行 ；同义替换 和句式变换也有那么一点味道
但也如你所指出的那样 废话太多 切中实际要害展开来说的少 可能因为我是实战中限时练习的缘故吧 一摸到键盘 脑袋就想着两个字：字数 ~~呵呵 生怕字数不够~~~~
总之 谢谢了 ~~
3# 12333321