欢迎拍小组 argu179

crazyjooUID: 2805124

TOPIC: ARGUMENT179 - The following is a memorandum written by the director of personnel to the president of the Cedar Corporation.

"It would be a mistake to rehire the Good-Taste Company to supply the food in our employee cafeteria next year. It is the second most expensive caterer in the city. In addition, its prices have risen in each of the last three years, and it refuses to provide meals for people on special diets. Just last month three employees complained to me that they no longer eat in the cafeteria because they find the experience 'unbearable.' Our company should instead hire Discount Foods. Discount is a family-owned local company and it offers a varied menu of fish and poultry. I recently tasted a sample lunch at one of the many companies that Discount serves and it was delicious-an indication that hiring Discount will lead to improved employee satisfaction."
WORDS: 462
TIME: 00:40:51     DATE: 2000-7-21 18:15:04

The argument is well present , but not thoroughly reasoned. By making a comparison of the price, menu and taste of food between Good-Taste Company and Discount Foods, the arguer recommends that the latter one is a better choice seems logical.

Firstly, we cannot tell which company is a better choice for Cedar Corporation because of the difference of price. The arguer's perspective  is an economic one. However, different people have different opinion on food. Some people like to spend lots of money on food, because they regard breakfast, lunch and supper as crucial and enjoyable parts of a day; other people do not care too much on the taste of food and hence prefer an economic choose. In fact, whether or not an economic choose is favored by most employee remains unknown. Moreover, common sense informs us that the more expensive food usually means more tasty and healthy.Good-Taste, the second most expensive caterer in the city ,is expected to be the second most tasty caterer in the city as well. Besides, the increase of its price over the last three years maybe accords with its skyrocketing popularity, increasing commitment to the quality of food. In this respect, it is presumptuous to conclude that Good-Taste Company should be replaced by Discount Foods.

Secondly, the arguer fails to convince us that the employee of Cedar Corporation will be more satisfied with Discount Food's menu than with Good-Taste's. In fact, people who order special diets are minority of the faculty. Thus, although Good-Taste Company refuse to provide meals for people on special diets, in a boarder view, it would have little impact on the overall employee satisfaction. Conversely, the menu of Discount Food teems with fish and poultry. It will easily arouse dissatisfaction among the employee since they have not multiple options and no all the people tend to have fish and poultry everyday.

Finally, the arguer fails to make a comprehensive analyze about the taste of food of these two companies. Complaints form three employees can hardly indicate that the taste of food of Good-Taste Company is really "unbearable" because they only take a little percentage of the faculty. Moreover, the arguer's personal experience cannot stand for the preference of the faculty. Even we accepted the arguer's assumption that his taste coordinates the faculty's taste, without sampling different meals at a host of companies that Discount serves, and did so randomly, the survey's result do not guarantee representativeness.

To sum up, the argument is not as persuasive as it stands. To make it more logical acceptable, the arguer should make a comprehensive survey to make sure that most Cedar Corporation's employees are not willing to afford the prohibited price of Good-Taste and are pleased to accept the new menu offered by Discount Foods. Moreover, arguer's recommendation will be more convincing if he sampled a sufficient number of people's reaction to these two companies' product.