argument241----欢迎拍文作文修改小组7.13作业

fchenyanUID: 2804020

TOPIC: ARGUMENT241 - 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."
WORDS: 503
TIME: 00:47:03
DATE: 2010-07-13 19:49:07

The memo suggests that it is a mistake to use Walsh Personnel Firm in the place of Delany, since Delany found jobs much more quickly than Walsh did. To support this, the author cites the facts when XYZ was using Walsh and Delany's performance. However the argument is not well reasoned and here are some weak points and doubtful points in the argument.

Firstly, the author said that only half of the workers they laid off eight years ago found jobs within a year. However, we cannot make a decision about whether this is a good performance of not since we have not known how many Delany can help to find jobs. On the other side, the economic condition has been change a lot since eight years ago and this fact cannot play a supporting role for the assertion of the memo. Furthermore, further information is need to show us what kind of job the workers they laid off found with the help of Walsh and how long they worked after they found that jobs.

Moreover, the memo is based on the assumption that personnel firm with bigger staff and larger number of branch offices is clearly superior. There is no research to illustrate this assumption. Haven't study the efficiency of their offices we cannot make sure which is more superior since there are possibilities that their branch offices slack in their work, which we need further information to exclude.

To support the conclusion the author gives an evidence to show that Delany's clients took an average of six months to find jobs but Walsh's clients took nine. But the author provides no information about how many jobs they found and the features of jobs they found, so that face illustrate nothing to show which is better. Even if the clients of the two firms found same number of jobs in the instance cited in the memo, we can still not judge which firm is more effective. That's because we have know little about practical situation of two firms. There is a possibility that there are less companies choose Walsh so it has less opportunity to find jobs, that is to say the proportion of successfully found jobs is higher.

On the other hand, even assume that it turned out to be less effective for Walsh' clients to find jobs, but further data is needed to prove that the laid-off employees like the jobs Delany found. The aim of choosing from personnel firms is to help laid-off employees, so they have rights to discourse. So the argument's course of reasoning is not comprehensive. The company neglects the opinions of that group of people, so the memo is not convincing on the base of a one-sided statement.

In summary, the memo is not well reasoned with the weak point and doubtful points. To make it persuasive, further information are needed to show that Delany Personnel Firm is superior and also the opinion of laid-off employees should be placed inside the scope of consideration.

alickenUID: 2845947

The memo suggests that it is a mistake to use Walsh Personnel Firm in the place of Delany, since Delany found jobs much more quickly than Walsh did. To support this, the author cites the facts when XYZ was using Walsh and Delany's performance(the author compares the performances of Walsh and Delany). However the argument is not well reasoned and here(there) are some weak points(删) and doubtful points in the argument.

Firstly, the author said(says) that only half of the workers they laid off eight years ago found jobs within a year. However, we cannot make a decision(judgment) about whether this is a good performance of(or) not since we have not known(do not know) how many (employees) Delany can helped to find jobs. (这句是不是 since we do not know the total number of employees who find jobs with Delany’s help) (这里还应该再阐述一下) On the other side, the economic condition has been change a lot since eight years ago and(so) this fact cannot play a supporting role for the assertion of the memo. Furthermore, further information is need to show us(be shown, like) what kind of job the workers they laid off found with the help of Walsh and how long they worked after they found that jobs. (最后总结一下)
(实际上这是个时间错误类比的错误，作者将现在的Delany 和 8年前的 Walsh 比，这显然是不对的)

Moreover, the memo is based on the assumption that personnel firm with bigger staff and larger number of branch offices is clearly superior. There is no research to illustrate(illustrate是动词) this assumption. Haven't study the efficiency of their offices we cannot make sure which is more superior since there are possibilities that their branch offices slack in their work, which we need further information to exclude(exclude是及物动词). So more information is needed to convince us

To support the conclusion the author gives an evidence to show that Delany's clients took an average of six months to find jobs but Walsh's clients took nine. But the author provides no information about how many jobs they found and the features(我觉得此处用qualities 一词更好) of jobs they found, so that face illustrate nothing to show which is better. Even if the clients of the two firms found same number of jobs in the instance cited in the memo, we can still not judge which firm is more effective. That's because we have know little about practical situation of two firms. There is a possibility that there are less companies choose Walsh so it has less opportunity to find jobs, that is to say the proportion of successfully found jobs is higher. (这不就承认Walsh差了，不能这么说)
(对于这个错误，我认为可以从job的质量下手，虽然D的客户找工作速度快但是不一定找到了好工作，而相反W的客户可能用更多的时间找到了好工作)

On the other hand, even assume that it turned out to be less effective for Walsh' clients to find jobs, but further data is needed to prove that the laid-off employees like the jobs Delany found. The aim of choosing from personnel firms is to help laid-off employees, so they have rights to discourse. So the argument's course of reasoning is not comprehensive. The company neglects the opinions of that group of people, so the memo is not convincing on the base of a one-sided statement.
(哦，你把job的质量写到这段了，建议和上段合并)

In summary, the memo is not well reasoned with the weak point and doubtful points. To make it persuasive, further information are needed to show that Delany Personnel Firm is superior and also the opinion of laid-off employees should be placed inside the scope of consideration.

共同进步

fchenyanUID: 2804020

2# alicken
同学，那一段说Walsh可能遇到了其他困难，比如客源少，在这种情况下就是完成比例高，你怎么搞的，怎么能理解成我说他差呢。

fchenyanUID: 2804020

The memo suggests that it is a mistake to use Walsh Personnel Firm in the place of Delany, since Delany found jobs much more quickly than Walsh did. To support this, the author cites the facts when XYZ was using Walsh and Delany's performance(the author compares the performances of Walsh and Delany). However the argument is not well reasoned and here(there)（受不了了，我就是想说接下来我要列举的就是……你的修改能不能是在理解的基础上？） are some weak points(删) and doubtful points in the argument.

Firstly, the author said(says) that only half of the workers they laid off eight years ago found jobs within a year. However, we cannot make a decision(judgment) about whether this is a good performance of(or) not since we have not known(do not know) how many (employees) Delany can helped to find jobs. (这句是不是 since we do not know the total number of employees who find jobs with Delany’s help) (这里还应该再阐述一下) On the other side, the economic condition has been change a lot since eight years ago and(so) this fact cannot play a supporting role for the assertion of the memo. Furthermore, further information is need to show us(be shown, like) what kind of job the workers they laid off found with the help of Walsh and how long they worked after they found that jobs. (最后总结一下)
(实际上这是个时间错误类比的错误，作者将现在的Delany 和 8年前的 Walsh 比，这显然是不对的)

Moreover, the memo is based on the assumption that personnel firm with bigger staff and larger number of branch offices is clearly superior. There is no research to illustrate(illustrate是动词) this assumption. Haven't study the efficiency of their offices we cannot make sure which is more superior since there are possibilities that their branch offices slack in their work, which we need further information to exclude(exclude是及物动词). So more information is needed to convince us

To support the conclusion the author gives an evidence to show that Delany's clients took an average of six months to find jobs but Walsh's clients took nine. But the author provides no information about how many jobs they found and the features(我觉得此处用qualities 一词更好) of jobs they found, so that face illustrate nothing to show which is better. Even if the clients of the two firms found same number of jobs in the instance cited in the memo, we can still not judge which firm is more effective. That's because we have know little about practical situation of two firms. There is a possibility that there are less companies choose Walsh so it has less opportunity to find jobs, that is to say the proportion of successfully found jobs is higher. (这不就承认Walsh差了，不能这么说)
(对于这个错误，我认为可以从job的质量下手，虽然D的客户找工作速度快但是不一定找到了好工作，而相反W的客户可能用更多的时间找到了好工作)

On the other hand, even assume that it turned out to be less effective for Walsh' clients to find jobs, but further data is needed to prove that the laid-off employees like the jobs Delany found. The aim of choosing from personnel firms is to help laid-off employees, so they have rights to discourse. So the argument's course of reasoning is not comprehensive. The company neglects the opinions of that group of people, so the memo is not convincing on the base of a one-sided statement.
(哦，你把job的质量写到这段了，建议和上段合并)（job的质量问题是始终存在的，和某一段合并就是在说这个问题仅仅出在那里，我很不同意）

In summary, the memo is not well reasoned with the weak point and doubtful points. To make it persuasive, further information are needed to show that Delany Personnel Firm is superior and also the opinion of laid-off employees should be placed inside the scope of consideration.