argument179

Ocean~SprayUID: 2847693

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: 393
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-7-21 20:35:51

The memorandum conclude that to hire Discount instead of the Good-Taste Company will lead to improved employee satisfaction, and to support this conclusion it provides several evidences including some data and the opinions from three employees and the author himself. However, careful examination reflects that this argument is logically problematic. Reasons are as followed.

First and forth, the arguer makes a mistake that the original Good-Taste Company is unsatisfactory merely because it is the second most expensive caterers in the city. In fact, to compare the prices is meaningless; he needs to calculate the rate of service quality against charges. What if the second most expensive caterer offers the best service and food? In addition, the arguer points out that its prices have risen in each of the last three years; but since we have no data about the economy environment and the condition of other caterer, we can't judge whether the risen prices are reasonable or not. If most of caterers have raised their charges, then to jump to the conclusion that the Good-Taste Company is unbearable is unpersuasive.

Moreover, the memorandum mentions the complaints-"unbearable"- from the three employees who had tasted in the original cafeteria. Nevertheless, the author made an invalid assumption that the three employees' opinions may represent the whole group. It is entirely possible that the three employees' appetites are different from the normal ones, they are more particular about food and service and the like. Without eliminating these possibilities the memorandum cannot persuade us.

Finally, the author tasted the food in the new company-Discount himself. He asserts that since the sample lunch Discount serves in other companies is delicious, they should hire Discount instead. Yet we all know that sample lunches are usually of high quality because businesspersons know it is the right time to attract potential consumers. In fact, their daily supplies may not be as satisfactory as this sample one. More importantly, the family-owned local company offers a varied menu of fish and poultry, which lacks support from the employees. Because in the memorandum they showed no appeals towards fish and poultry.

To sum up, to make the memorandum sounder, the arguer has to prove that the Good-Taste Company is more expensive than other competitors when serving the same quality of food; To further convince us, he has to provide evidences that the employees are on earth prefer the Discount to Good-Taste Company.

raysun77UID: 2688235

1# Ocean~Spray
感觉这篇argument 已经比较成熟了，不管是攻击角度还是上下文的顺接情况都挺好，但是还是有其他几个问题可以用来攻击比如：
1.The director fails to inform us if the prices of other caterers have also been rising through the past years.
2.The director fails to inform us how much does Discount charge for its services.
3.the three unsatisfied employees could hardly constitute a statistically representative sample.
1.
44.The director fails to investigate if the menu provided by Discount could satisfy people on special diet.