[第一篇Argu]Argument179

aifreedomUID: 2866504

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: 615          TIME: 01:38:28          DATE: 7/30/2010 10:33:38 PM




This argument argues that it would be a mistake to rehire the Good-Taste Company(GTC) to supply the food in the employee cafeteria next year and recommends that the company should instead hire Discount Foods(DF). To bolster his conclusion, the arguer provides the fact that the price of the GTC is increasing and now is the second-most-expensive food provider available but the GTC refused to offer meals for employees on special diets. In addition, he cited the complaints by the employees on the cafeteria. Furthermore, the arguer pointed out that the DF is a family-owned local company and provides a varied menu. And he also use his own experience to illustrate hiring the DF will improve employee satisfaction.  At first glance, this argument seems to be convincing. However, further reflection reveals that this argument suffers from several critical flaws and is therefore unconvincing as it stands.



To begin with, the recommendation partly relies on the fact that the price of the GTC is the second highest in the city and the prices have risen in each of the last three years. But this recommendation is based on which food provider would best satisfy the employees of the company, not which one would reduce the cost of the company. In other words, this evidence is not directly relevant to the reasons for the arguer's recommendation. Even if expense were a legitimate factor, it is still possible that DF is even more expensive than the GTC.



In the second place, the recommendation also relies on the evidence that three employees complained about the cafeteria. But it presents two problems. First, the arguer assumes that the food provided by the GTC is responsible for the complaints. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that it is necessary the case, and the arguer does not supply any evidence to confirm this assumption. It is quite possible that other conditions in the cafeteria, like the environment, are responsible instead. Without accounting for and ruling out these and other alternative explanations, the arguer cannot bolster the recommendation. Second, the arguer assumes the complaints are representative samples of the employees' opinion. However, the arguer provides no evidence to substantiate this assumption.



Yet another problem is the arguer assumes that the DF can offer a better service for the employees on special diets. However, given the fact that the DF offers a varied menu of fish and poultry, the arguer fails to provide the connections between special diets and the food offered by the DF. It is quite possible that the employees on special diets cannot have fish or poultry. Namely, the evidence proves nothing unless the arguer can show that the special diets mainly consist of fish and poultry.

The last but not the least important, even if the evidence turns out to support the foregoing assumptions, the arguer just simply assumes that the employees of the company has the same preference for food with him and no convincing evidence is provided to affirm this assumption. It is reasonable to doubt that what the arguer assumes will not happen in reality. It is just as possible that the arguer's taste for food is utterly different from other employees. For example, the arguer's favorite is fish and poultry but the others' are not. To reach the cited conclusion, the arguer must provide evidence to demonstrate that this is not the reality.



To sum up, the arguer's argument and recommendation mentioned about are not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the arguer should reason more convincingly, cite some evidence that is more persuasive, and  take every possible consideration into account.



简单说一下思路吧

• GTC的价钱上涨, 并不应该作为不选择它的理由, 因为选择的理由应该是提供更好的质量. 而且就算GTC涨到了第二贵, 有可能DF是第一贵的, 题目中没有给出相应的证据.
• 三个雇员抱怨有2个问题: 1.抱怨的原因不一定是因为GTC的食物问题, 可能是其他的原因; 2. 样本不具备代表性, 不能代表公司员工的普遍想法
• 题目中的陈述没有给出DF能提供GTC拒绝提供的special diets.
• 作者以偏概全地认为自己决定好吃的食物, 公司里其他雇员也都会觉得好吃.
  

入门的时候看了placebo的简单粗暴模板, 但还没有完全吸收精华, 所以模板痕迹还很重. 而且写作的途中还参考了范文, 可能思路上也很局限. 还有哪些问题, 欢迎大家猛烈拍砖! 有讨论的朋友一定尽力回拍!
   

figuechenUID: 2850619

简单地指出几个问题吧：
1。开头段简单地同义复述题目没有必要，可以找逻辑链和逻辑错误，但不需要把论据说得那么详细。关于Argu的开头到底该怎么写还存在争议，但我个人认为复述原题实在无用。

2。北美体过于明显。该文体的最大缺点在于展开不够。一段的大部分语言都浪费在了模版式的废话上，而具体展开太少。比如P3 It is quite possible that other conditions in the cafeteria, like the environment, are responsible instead. 这句话，完全可以再展开说，environment怎么就be responsible for the complaints了呢？可以说在这个攻击点上P3的其余语言都是废话，只有寻找他因材才是比较有内容的话，但这种话在文中太少。

过于模版化的语言可能会带来一些问题吧，还是尽量避免。另外段落之间最好也能构成逻辑关系，比如让步之类

就这么多吧，我不是高手，有不正确之处还请多多指教

aifreedomUID: 2866504

2# figuechen

谢谢! 在写模板的过程中我也慢慢觉得它的"框架"性内容太多了, 因而600多词里, 一半左右都是模板. 我也认为模板应该尽量简洁些, 有实质性意义的内容才是得分的主要部分.