argument241----欢迎拍文作文修改小组7.13作业

neverjustUID: 2848024

241The 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."


========================




7-13
WORDS:422
This argument suffers from certain statistical and other problems, which render the conclusion based upon it unpersuasive. Firstly, the arguer falsely attribute the succeed and quicker employment to the assistance of Delany Personnel Firm (DPF).What’s more, many conditions has changed during the 8 years. The last but not the least, the fact that DPF held an shorter average time for finding jobs at just last year could not assure the DPF’s clients would got jobs easier. Let me analyze these problems below.

In the first place, the author commits “after this, and therefore because of this” fallacy. The causal relationship between the cause of laid-off employees who used DPF have got jobs much quicker and the effect that they have benefited hugely from DPF is unwarranted. Everyone has different expectation and requirement. Some people urged to get jobs, they would take any job that could be paid. Some others would accept high salary or interested vocation only. Even if those quicker employments have been proved as a result of DPF’s assistance, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow that the slower job takers have not found more satisfied in the end. So, this is a fallacious reasoning unless the author can provide persuasive evidences to rule out any other possibilities.

Secondly, it was 8 years passed from the cooperation with WPF last time. The job-hunting situation has absolutely changed. More and more companies might appear, and naturally the demand of employees will increase. People’s thoughts changed too, they may be willing to try some other jobs from their original ones. The quality of employees has improved, maybe some of them are the people who just suffered from get fired 8 years ago, their quality may be higher and will got jobs easier. So it is possible that finding jobs at 8 years ago is much harder than current.

In addition, the author just took account the average time for getting a job of last year. The data of only one year couldn’t present the efficiency of one company. Maybe it’s just an accidental phenomenon or caused by some occasional reason. He should provide more complete and detailed information for us to evaluate which firm is more productive.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks of credibility, because the author has not referred to enough information about the two firms, so we cannot simply evaluate which one is more effective. To strengthen it, the arguer should analyze and compare the data of the two firms carefully before make the decision.

jannethUID: 2769502

241The 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."


========================




7-13
WORDS:422
This argument suffers from certain statistical and other(logical 个人觉得这儿有点怪) problems, which render the conclusion based upon unpersuasive. Firstly, the arguer falsely attributes the succeed and quicker employment to the assistance of Delany Personnel Firm (DPF).What’s more, many conditions has changed during the 8 years. The last but not the least, the fact that DPF held an shorter average time for finding jobs at just last year could not assure the DPF’s clients would got jobs easier. Let me analyze these problems below.(And then I will analyze each of these flaws in turn,这儿感觉有点不是很连贯……)
In the first place, the author commits “after this, and therefore because of this” fallacy(啥意思啊…是最后一句话吗，你可以做同意变换啊. （两句之间没有连接词）The causal relationship between the cause of laid-off employees who used DPF have got jobs much quicker and the effect that they have benefited hugely from DPF is unwarranted（这个句子结构感觉很别扭啊…）（逻辑连接词）. Everyone has different expectation and requirement. Some people urged to get jobs, they would take any job that could be paid. However,Some others would accept high salary or interested vocation only. Even if those quicker employments have been proved as a result of DPF’s assistance, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption(这里貌似很矛盾啊，前面不是让步吗…), it does not follow that the slower job takers have not found more satisfied in the end. So, this is a fallacious reasoning unless the author can provide persuasive evidences to rule out any other possibilities.

Secondly, it was 8 years passed from the cooperation with WPF last time. (同样的问题连接词)The job-hunting situation has absolutely changed. More and more companies might appear, and naturally the demand of employees will increase. People’s thoughts changed too, they may be willing to try some other jobs from their original ones. (同样的问题连接词) The quality of employees has improved, maybe some of them are the people who just suffered from get fired 8 years ago(什么意思???), their quality may be higher and will got jobs easier. So it is possible that finding jobs at 8 years ago is much harder than current.

In addition, the author just took account the average time for getting a job of last year. The data of only one year couldn’t present the efficiency of one company. Maybe it’s just an accidental phenomenon or caused by some occasional reason. He should provide more complete and detailed information for us to evaluate which firm is more productive. (个人觉得在这论述的关键应该是顾客平均找工作的时间并不能全面的说明两家公司的好坏,这可能还与顾客的工作能力,工作的性质等其他原因有关)
To sum up, the conclusion lacks of credibility, because the author has not referred to enough information about the two firms, so we cannot simply evaluate which one is more effective. To strengthen it, the arguer should analyze and compare the data of the two firms carefully before make the decision.
(个人总体感觉句与句之间,还有段与段之间的逻辑联系几乎没有,文章整体感觉有点混乱，感觉只是独立的翻译了提纲,个人建议去看看北美范文,还有ETS官方范文找感觉～呵呵，我之前写的超级烂，多看看范文对逻辑的建立以及论述语句的应用相当有用，加油，大家一起努力哈～)

neverjustUID: 2848024

2# janneth
感谢小J的评改~！:hug: