第一篇argu241求拍 有链接必回

csjpsUID：2700723

TOPIC: ARGUMENT241 - The following appeared in a memo at the XYZ Company.

"When XYZ lays off employees, it pays Delany Personnel Firm to offer those employees assistance in creating resumes and developing interviewing skills, if they so desire. Laid-off employees have benefited greatly from Delany's services: last year those who used Delany found jobs much more quickly than did those who did not. Recently, it has been proposed that we use the less-expensive Walsh Personnel Firm in place of Delany. This would be a mistake because eight years ago, when XYZ was using Walsh, only half of the workers we laid off at that time found jobs within a year. Moreover, Delany is clearly superior, as evidenced by its bigger staff and larger number of branch offices. After all, last year Delany's clients took an average of six months to find jobs, whereas Walsh's clients took nine."


The author concludes that it is a mistake to use Walsh Personnel Firm (WP) rather than the previous Delany. To illustrate it, the author cites the fact that: (1) laid-off workers from XYZ company benefited greatly from Delany's assistance in resume and interviewing skills; (2) only half of the laid-off workers from XYZ found jobs when WP were used; (3) Delany has bigger staff, more branch offices, as well as shorter time to find jobs for clients than that of Walsh. The generalization seems sound at first. However, several critical flaws make it unreliable.
To begin with, it is deduced that Delany's services had helped those laid-off workers from the simple fact that they found their jobs more quickly. While the author fails to indicate that other similar firm will exert a better influence on them. Or that the many factories opened recently, which are in demand of workers, are the key factors in solving the unemployment. Before any of the factors are ruled out, the author's hasty generalization that Delany was essential in workers' job-finding might remained unproved.
Furthermore, the author regards Delany as superior than WP on the basis of its bigger staff, more branch offices and shorter time to find jobs for clients, which is biased. Anyway, they are not the only reasons for a firm's superiority. It's the firm's efficiency, output that really count. It's entirely possible that staff in WP are much more efficient, WP are enjoying a greater working mode or WP's clients will gain better jobs after longer training time. Without a specific explanation, the author's assertion that Delany is superior sounds absurd.
Even I concede that Delany is better than WP, there is no evidence showing that XYZ should input more money on it. Possibly, it won’t pay to invest on the high price or XYZ would suffice with service offered by WP, even though it’s not as good as that of Delany. Only after calculating how much the service really worth can XYZ finally reach the generalization to substitute Delany for WP.
All in all, the memo is based on shaky grounds, thus making the whole conclusion unconvincing. The author, nevertheless, should provide more information on all the factors connected to clients’ success in finding their job, a more scientific comparison between Delany and WP in their productivity or efficiency rather than others. What’s more, the author also needs to confirm that Delany worth the expensive the dear price. Even so, careful considerations should be taken before final decision is made.