欢迎拍文修改小组7.21作业 argument179

迷失的鱼UID: 2850922

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: 320

TIME: 00:32:00
DATE: 2010/7/21 20:39:20

In the memo, the author claims that they should hire Discount Food(DF) instead of Good-Teste Company(GC) because of prices, refuses to offer people on special diets meals, and three complains last month. And the author points out that the DF's sample is delicious. Supportive at first glance, a closer look at these evidences show they suffers several logical fallacies.

First of all, the author unfairly assumes that they should not rehire GC because of its high and increasing price. However, without any information to show that GC is expensive at cafeteria or DF will be less dear next year. It is possible that although GC is expensive at a wide view, they suffer cheap cafeteria and expensive in other services. In addition, if GC have a relative lower increase in the last three years while other food supply companies, such as FD, have a more sharp boost, we cannot confirm that which company is actually more expensive in the next year. If the author can take these possibilities into account, he will make his conclusion more justable.

Secondly, the author hastily generalizes the delicious sample to a good supply. Common sense tells that there is narrow relationship between. Without a text of how FD food is, we can suppose that a sample is a biased convey, and in reality, the sample offered by FD should be for sure better than average, which will be supply the employees. Moreover, whether the food is delicious cannot be judge by one people who may have taste different from others, so others may adversely feel unpalatable. Not making a more detailed convey, we cannot confirm that FD's food is really delicious.

Thirdly, the author claims that how the food supply is is the sole explanation of the level of employee satisfaction. However, no information shows the casual relationship because employee satisfaction is a combination of several factors, such as salary, working circumstance, welfare etc. Solely providing that they will offer better cafeteria cannot lead to a improvement of satisfaction, while, for example, owner decreased the salaries, which will undoubtedly decrease the level of satisfaction. Falling to rule out the likelihoods above, the author cannot draw that the satisfaction will be improved.

Lastly but not least, the author creates an “either-or” dilemma reasoning that FD and DC is not mutual excluded. It is possible that there are other food supply companies that can supply better food than either of these two, or a simple implement, such as negotiating DC about discount and offer additional meals or offering more elections on food will gain, if not better, the same result. Not pointing out that it is an alternative choice, the author cannot claim that FD is the only and the best choice.

In sum, the author claims that they should hire FD instead of DC, but he commits several logical fallacies. To better strengthen his claim, he should offer more information exhibits that FD is actually better than DC and it is the best choice comparing with any other companies and implement. To further evaluate his conclusion, he should make a convey about whether employee satisfaction is solely based on its food supply.

短发mmUID: 2840480

1# 迷失的鱼

In the memo, the author claims that they should hire Discount Food(DF) instead of Good-Teste Company(GC) because of prices, refuses(refusing) to offer people on special diets meals, and three complains(complaints) last month. And the author points out that the DF's sample is delicious. Supportive at first glance, a closer look at these evidences(evidence) show they suffers several logical fallacies. First of all, the author unfairly assumes that they should not rehire GC because of its high and increasing price. However, without any information to show that GC is expensive at cafeteria or DF will be less dear next year. It is possible that although GC is expensive at a wide view, they suffer cheap cafeteria and expensive in other services. In addition, if GC have a relative lower increase in the last three years while other food supply companies, such as FD, have a more sharp boost, we cannot confirm that which company is actually more expensive in the next year. If the author can take these possibilities into account, he will make his conclusion more justable.(我指出你的偏向点为:没有任何证据显示价格昂贵.但是你这个不是丢了西瓜捡芝麻吗?正常逻辑是就算贵不能说明不好,正因为不好所以要换掉,贵不贵是借口,你不应该着重看到借口,你否定一个借口他还有千万个借口,你要说他所提供的这个借口根本不能证明是不好的.) Secondly, the author hastily generalizes the delicious sample to a good supply. Common sense tells that there is narrow relationship between.(?) Without a text of how FD food is, we can suppose that a sample is a biased convey, and in reality, the sample offered by FD should be for sure better than average, which will be supply the employees. Moreover, whether the food is delicious cannot be judge by one people who may have taste different from others, so others may adversely feel unpalatable. Not making a more detailed convey, we cannot confirm that FD's food is really delicious. Thirdly, the author claims that how the food supply is is the sole explanation of the level of employee satisfaction. However, no information shows the casual relationship(?) because employee satisfaction is a combination of several factors, such as salary, working circumstance, welfare etc. Solely providing that they will offer better cafeteria cannot lead to a improvement of satisfaction, while, for example, owner decreased the salaries, which will undoubtedly decrease the level of satisfaction. Falling to rule out the likelihoods above, the author cannot draw that the satisfaction will be improved. Lastly but not least, the author creates an “either-or” dilemma reasoning that FD and DC is not mutual excluded. It is possible that there are other food supply companies that can supply better food than either of these two, or a simple implement, such as negotiating DC about discount and offer additional meals or offering more elections on food will gain, if not better, the same result. Not pointing out that it is an alternative choice, the author cannot claim that FD is the only and the best choice.(表达我基本没有看懂)你想说的是不是选择范围比较狭窄,但是你又没有表达好 In sum, the author claims that they should hire FD instead of DC, but he commits several logical fallacies. To better strengthen his claim, he should offer more information exhibits(?俩动词) that FD is actually better than DC and it is the best choice comparing with any other companies and implement. To further evaluate his conclusion, he should make a convey about whether employee satisfaction is solely based on its food supply.

总结:攻击逻辑错误的时候本文自身存在很多逻辑错误,外加主位关系,表达等问题.希望不要为求速度放弃质量

迷失的鱼UID: 2850922

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: 395          TIME: 00:31:13          DATE: 2010/7/22 2:48:30

In the memo, the author claims that they should hire Discount Foods (DF) to supply the food instead of Good-Taste Company (GC). To support his claim, he offers the following evidences: 1) price determines quality; 2) GC refuses to meet special need and three employees complain about their food; 3) sample offered by DF is described delicious. However, his claim suffers several logical fallacies.

First of all, the author assumes that the price is the sole determinant of quality, while common sense tells us that it is not the case. If food offered by GC are more delicious than that offered by DC so that employees prefer GC's food actually although their price are relatively higher than DC's. In addition, given the statistics that GC is the second most expensive caterer in the city cannot predict whether it is still the situation next year. Not ruling out these possibilities, the author cannot draw his conclusion supportive.

Secondly, the author claims that they should supersede GC with DC because their refuse of special supply and employees complaint. However, without any other information comparing with other companies we cannot judge whether GC has done a good job. For example, if special need is refused by any food supply company because its higher cost and complex operation, and food supplied by other companies may raise more complaint, we can suppose that GC is actually better than other choices. If the author can offer more information to exhibit that GC's food is unpalatable and DC can satisfy a special need, he will render his conclusion more convincing.

Thirdly, the author unfairly assumes that a claimed-tasty sample is equal to all the delicious lunches, while in fact a sample is a biased convey of the DC's food. Without more convey about how DC's food is we can suppose that the sample cannot represent all the lunches; similarly, author's taste cannot represent all the employees' taste. In that case, the author's report is insufficient to claim that employee will feel satisfied with DC's food supply.

In Sum, the author claims that they should hire DC to supersede GC to supply food, but he commits several mistakes. To better strengthen his claim, he should provide more information about comparison GC with DC, including food quality, employee's reference etc.. To further evaluate his claim, he should make a more detailed convey about GC's food to make a more pursuable conclusion.

fchenyanUID: 2804020

好认真呀，这算是重新写一遍吗？赞啊

短发mmUID: 2840480

3# 迷失的鱼
In the memo, the author claims（个人感觉这里还是用过去式，因为claim已经发生了） that they should hire Discount Foods (DF) to supply the food instead of Good-Taste Company (GC). To support his claim, he offers the following evidences: 1) price（Price） determines quality; 2) GC refuses to meet special need and three employees complain（complained） about their food; 3) sample offered by DF is described delicious. However, his claim suffers several logical fallacies. First of all, the author assumes that the price is the sole determinant of quality, while common sense tells us that it is not the case.(老实说这句有点多余) If food offered by GC are（is） more delicious than that offered by DC so that （换成and then表示递进）employees prefer GC's food actually although their price are relatively higher than DC's（这句话是2者的比较，如果是我写我不会限定范围，不过个人意见，因为这里感觉很刻意。）. In addition, given the statistics that GC is the second most expensive caterer in the city cannot predict whether it is still the situation next year. Not ruling out these possibilities, the author cannot draw his conclusion supportive（adj?）.
Secondly, the author claims that they should supersede GC with(用法好像有点问题，常见的为。。。被取代) DC because their refuse of special supply and employees complaint. However, without any other information comparing with other companies we cannot judge whether GC has done a good job. For example, if special need is refused by any food supply company because its higher cost and complex operation, and food supplied by other companies may raise more complaint, we can suppose that GC is actually better than other choices. If the author can offer more information to exhibit that GC's food is unpalatable and DC can satisfy a special need, he will render his conclusion more convincing.
Thirdly, the author unfairly assumes that a claimed-tasty sample is equal to all the delicious lunches, while in fact a sample is a biased convey of the DC's food. Without more convey about how DC's food is we can suppose that the sample cannot represent all the lunches; similarly, author's taste cannot represent all the employees' taste. In that case, the author's report is insufficient to claim that employee will feel satisfied with DC's food supply.
In Sum, the author claims that they should hire DC to supersede GC to supply food, but he commits several mistakes. To better strengthen his claim, he should provide more information about comparison GC with DC, including food quality, employee's reference etc.. （句号就行了）To further evaluate his claim, he should make a more detailed convey about GC's food to make a more pursuable conclusion.
词语的用法请参照词典，我不多做修改，你自己看。然后我总结下你的观点：
1、the price is the sole determinant of quality，然后支持观点的论据有food offered by GC are more delicious（感觉论据a bit narrow，论点没有问题）
2、without any other information comparing with other companies we cannot judge whether GC has done a good job. 支持的论据为
food supplied by other companies may raise more complaint；special need is refused by any food supply company due to its higher cost and complex operation，etc。但是不是要把GC换掉吗，说GC做得不好其他公司做的好就可以了啊，怎么感觉有点本末倒置的味道，论据变成其他公司可能引起更多grumbles,这个我有点超级无敌的汗。
3、Without more convey about how DC's food is we can suppose that the sample cannot represent all the lunches; similarly, author's taste cannot represent all the employees' taste. 完全无支持论据，论点还可以