[66's]同题 Argument73 de Sean

liberta.seanUID: 2700223

Txt中写的，不知道多少字了。
Purely based on groundless assumption and questionable evidence, the statement draws a conclusion thatthey should focus on leasing cars rather than selling cars .To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer points out evidence that the number od leasing new cars has exceeded the number of buying new cars.Moreover, he indicates that perhaps the most of the drivers will use leasing cars . On the face of it, the author's argument appears to be convincing to some extent. Further contemplation, however, reveals that it neglects some consequential concerns that should be addressed to corroborate the argument .In my point of view, this argument suffers from three logical flaws.

First of all,the author wrongly depends on gratuitous assumption that cars leasing markert is better than the cars selling market. In the argument the fact thatthere are more cars leased than cars bought  is brought out to support this assumption .however it is most likely that  people who lease cars can lease many cars in one year but that people who buy cars can only buy one during one year or even five years more usually  .Therefore,this cannot leand strong support to the assumpotion .On the contrary ,there are many people leasing cars who can be the promise of buying cars in the future ,leading to the good market of selling cars.Therefor the argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility

Secondly ,even though the market of leasing cars is better than that of selling cars,the argument cannot assume this trend will remain the same in the future . The assumption is gratuitous for the reason that over extended periods of time things hardly ever remain the same. It is entirely possible that people will not inclined to lease cars but prefer to buy cars in the following years .If the company switch to the business on leasing cars ,it will get less profilt than it does now .Perhaps ,the market of leasing cars is the same as that of selling cars ,the company had better focus on the selling market rather than make efforts to change its focus of business.Any of these scenarios ,if true ,would emasculate the arguer's claim

Thirdly ,even though the market of leasing cars is better now and in the following years ,the arguer cannot assume that switching to the business of leasing cars can bring greater profits. The arguer does not provide enough information concerning the situation about leasing cars.It is entirely possible that there are so many company doing this business ,which makes the market already saturated and the competition is very intense .Therefore ,it's difficult for a new company to get much profit .Without ruling out these possible occurences,the arguer cannot confidently conclude that they should change their focus to leasing cars.

In sum ,this arguer fails to substantiate its claim of switching business to leasing cars,for the reason that the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains .To make the argument more persuasive ,the arguer would have to demonstrate that the market of leasing cars are prosperous and there are not many companies doing that business .Therefore ,if the argument had included the given factors discussed above ,it would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.

soilinkinUID: 2163892

Purely based on groundless assumption and questionable evidence, the statement draws a conclusion thatthey should focus on leasing cars rather than selling cars .To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer points out evidence that the number od leasing new cars has exceeded the number of buying new cars.Moreover, he indicates that perhaps the most of the drivers will use leasing cars . On the face of it, the author's argument appears to be convincing to some extent. Further contemplation, however, reveals that it neglects some consequential concerns that should be addressed to corroborate the argument .In my point of view, this argument suffers from three logical flaws.

First of all,the author wrongly depends on gratuitous assumption that cars leasing markert is better than the cars selling market. In the argument the fact thatthere are more cars leased than cars bought  is brought out to support this assumption .however it is most likely that  people who lease cars can lease many cars in one year but that people who buy cars can only buy one during one year or even five years more usually  .Therefore,this cannot leand strong support to the assumpotion .On the contrary ,there are many people leasing cars who can be the promise of buying cars in the future ,leading to the good market of selling cars.Therefor the argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility

Secondly ,even though the market of leasing cars is better than that of selling cars,the argument cannot assume this trend will remain the same in the future . The assumption is gratuitous for the reason that over extended periods of time things hardly ever remain the same. It is entirely possible that people will not inclined to lease cars but prefer to buy cars in the following years .If the company switch to the business on leasing cars ,it will get less profilt than it does now .Perhaps ,the market of leasing cars is the same as that of selling cars ,the company had better focus on the selling market rather than make efforts to change its focus of business.Any of these scenarios ,if true ,would emasculate the arguer's claim

Thirdly ,even though the market of leasing cars is better now and in the following years ,the arguer cannot assume that switching to the business of leasing cars can bring greater profits. The arguer does not provide enough information concerning the situation about leasing cars.It is entirely possible that there are so many company doing this business ,which makes the market already saturated and the competition is very intense .Therefore ,it's difficult for a new company to get much profit .Without ruling out these possible occurences,the arguer cannot confidently conclude that they should change their focus to leasing cars.

In sum ,this arguer fails to substantiate its claim of switching business to leasing cars,for the reason that the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains .To make the argument more persuasive ,the arguer would have to demonstrate that the market of leasing cars are prosperous and there are not many companies doing that business .Therefore ,if the argument had included the given factors discussed above ,it would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.

本来还想说写的不错的...居然用模板...