argument179 欢迎拍文修改小组

raysun77UID: 2688235

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."
In this memorandum, the arguer claimed that would be a mistake to rehire the Good-Taste Company to supply the food. And then, the arguer proved some evidence to support the claim. He or she proofed some disadvantages for the Good-Taste Company, and then, compared with Discount Foods to make the claim seemed more convincing. At the first glance, the memorandum seemed very reasonable, however, there are several questionable reason that might undermine the claim.

At first, the arguer points out that the Good-Taste Company is a high price company. Of course, price is an important factor while considering the food supply for employees by any standards. However, what is more important, is the quality, such as nutrition, variety, freshness, and so on. If one person were the president of a corporation, he , most of time , would rather choose a food company who can supply fresh, delicious and healthy meals, with higher price, than one whose food supply is less quality, with a lower price.
The second reason why the arguer rejects to rehire the Good-Taste is that “it refuses to provide meals for people on special diets”. He also set an example, “Just last month three employees complained to me that they no longer eat in the cafeteria because they find the experience 'unbearable.'” The arguer didn’t provide more information about how many staff in the Cedar Corporation. What is entirely possible is that three employees in a big corporation absolutely is as one drop in the ocean. The response of the majority should be focused on. Suppose that most of the employees feel satisfied about the diets, is it necessary to emphasize the complaints of such a few persons? The answer is NO. What’s more, If their requirement is reasonable, the Cedar Corporation can give their suggestions to the food company and solve this problem instead of hare another company.

Finally, the arguer compared Discount with Good—Taste company , he assume that hiring Discount will lead to improved employee satisfaction
for his own experience. As we all know that anyone’s opinion cannot represent the opinions of the mass. How he knows that others will be satisfied with the food as he does? This is only his own supposition which dose not depend on any fact. Before proofing more evidence to show that most of employee will satisfied with Discount, the arguer cannot conclude such unconvincing conclusion.

For the reasons given above, I strongly recommend the president of the Cedar Corporation taking a more overall consideration of Good-Taste Company and Discount Foods and making enough analysis and planning, which will lead to a more rational choice.