【Flyer杀G作文组】7月18日Argument241-By Candygege

candygegeUID: 2792059

241. 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."
难度：★★

The memo claims that using Wlsh Personnel Firm (W) in place of Delany (D) would be a mistake. To support this claim the memo points out that the experienc of using WP eight yeas ago. He also cites various other evidence that compare the two company's struction. Careful examination of this supporting evidence, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the memo's claim.
   First of all, the argument states that because of the training provided by D, XYZ's laid-off employees, who receive training, found a new job much more quickly. Obviously, it neglects the fact that D only service the employees who require assistance. Perhaps, these kind of employees pay much more attention on finding new jobs, as well as, they spend more time and energy in this matter. Thus, they can find new jobs much more quickly. In another word, the D's service do not play such arole as important as the speaker said.
   Second, the argument use an old experience, which happend eight years ago, judging the W's present ability. The statement of employ market may be totally changed during eight years, then it is unsurprised to see such a result. And finding job is a complex influenced by many factors, like individual abilities, opportunity and so on. There is not enough evidence to support the speaker's view. In addition, we have no idea about the number of laid-off emplyees, so the two conditions like apples and oranges. Even if one accept the suggestion that W was not good at training eight years ago, the argument remains questionable. The arthor provides no evidence that this company has no progress over eight years.
   Finally, the arguer claims that the D is clearly superior. However, the fact that D has a bigger staff and larger number of branch offices entirely possible suggests its uneffectiveness in management. And W's clients taking an average of nine months to find jobs does not support the author's opinion. At the first place, nine months is not long for a job finder. And then, there is a lack of evidence to illuminate the quanlity and quantity of jobs. Maybe, the longer time suggests that W can offer such many great oppoturnities for clients that they need more time to make a careful decision.
   In conclusion, the argument is not persuasive. The author need to provide more sufficient evidence to support that the D is clearly superior than W, like the detailed work report, the feedback of clients, clients' well-being and so on.

红绡UID: 2839171

1# candygege
The memo claims that using Walsh Personnel Firm (W) in place of Delany (D) would be a mistake. To support this claim the memo points out that the experience of using WP eight years ago. He also cites various other evidence that (to) compare the two company's struction. Careful examination of this supporting evidence, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the memo's claim.
   First of all, the argument states that because of the training provided by D, XYZ's laid-off employees, who receive training, found a new job much more quickly. Obviously, it neglects the fact that D only services the employees who require assistance. Perhaps, these kind of employees pay much more attention on finding new jobs, as well as, they spend more time and energy in this matter. Thus, they can find new jobs much more quickly. In another word, perhaps the D's service does not play such a role as important as the speaker said.
   Second, the argument uses an old experience, which happened eight years ago, judging the W's present ability. The statement of employ market may be totally changed during eight years, then it is unsurprised to see such a result. And finding job is a complex influenced by many factors, like individual abilities, opportunity and so on. There is not enough evidence to support the speaker's view. In addition, we have no idea about the number of laid-off employees, so the two conditions like apples and oranges. Even if one accepts the suggestion that W was not good at training eight years ago, (解释完整些，只提了一句，论述不够充分)the argument remains questionable. The author provides no evidence that this company has no progress over eight years.
   Finally, the arguer claims that the D is clearly superior. However, the fact that D has a bigger staff and larger number of branch offices entirely possible (possibly) suggests its ineffectiveness in management. And W's clients taking an average of nine months to find jobs does not support the author's opinion. At the first place, nine months is not long for a job finder. And then, there is a lack of evidence to illuminate the quality and quantity of jobs. Maybe, the longer time suggests that W can offer such many great opportunities for clients that they need more time to make a careful decision. 最后加句总结性的话会更好。
   In conclusion, the argument is not persuasive. The author need to provide more sufficient evidence to support that the D is clearly superior to W, like the detailed work report, the feedback of clients, clients' well-being and so on.