argument4<彼岸小组第四次作业> by 7号

melody-quUID: 2970250

Based on the unfound evidence that Adams Realty has the adventage in the number of real estate agents and the revenue last year over Fitch Realty, as well as the arguer his own experiment（experiences） in selling homes through two agents(agencies), the author drives to the conclusion that Adams is clearly superior to Fitch and recommend others to use Adams in order to sell home quickly and at a good price.

To begin with, when the arguer tries to persuade us the Adams has more working force to provide you better service he only mentions the numbers of two companies’ real agents. What he forgets to inform us is how many clients of each real agents(是指职员和真正的代理人的区别吗？), how many days and how many hours per day do they work, and how about the clients’ work efficiency. What if the total hours of the clients in Fitch’ 25 agents are faraway beyond those of Adams’ 40 agents, and what is more, what if the clients working part time are actually experts who provide limited time but have great influencing effect.（这一点很新颖，赞！）When taking all these respects into account, there is a great possibility that though having a small quantity of real estate agents, the Fitch is more efficient.

Further(?), the author commits a fallacy that he takes for granted that the avenue last year is telling enough to convince us that Adams has better economic benefit than Fitch. He omits the situation that it happened to be so last year, influenced by some specific reasons such as national financial strategy, advertisement effects. Therefore, it is likely that before last year, Adams never 超过 Fitch.（这一段略显单薄。。。。）

What is more, the situation happened last year is not certain to continue. Fitch can win advantage by adjusting old strategy, putting forward new manage measure and so on. In this sense, this evidence seems weak to support the arguer’ opinion.Last problem I feel worthy to mention is that the arguer examples his own experience in attempt to persuade us. He falls to give information about the two houses’ specific condition. It is no denying that the difference of the homes can in great degree decide the sold price and the waiting time. Also, the different years’ influence is so great that maybe the former home was sold during the great depression and the outcome is obvious easy understanding. So without excluding the possible influential factors, the author’ conclusion is open to doubt.

To sum up, To solidify his claim, the author would have to provide more detail information with regard to the two companies’ working force. In addition, more direct evidence should be demonstrated that the Adams has better benefit than Fitch in consisting years and the difference selling outcomes of his two homes are decided by the two companies, rather than the difference in the two houses or the two years. If the factors discussed above had been included in the argument, it would have been more convincing and logical accepted.

muzhihao1UID: 2959675

Based on the unfound (unfounded) evidence that Adams Realty has the adventage in the number of real estate agents and the revenue last year over Fitch Realty, as well as the arguer his own experiment in selling homes through two agents, the author drives to the conclusion that Adams is clearly superior to Fitch and recommend others to use Adams in order to sell home quickly and at a good price.
开头简单果然感觉舒服点

To begin with, when the arguer tries to persuade us the Adams has more working force to provide you better service he only mentions the numbers of two companies’ real agents. What he forgets to inform us is how many clients of each real agents, how many days and how many hours per day do they work, and how about the clients’ work efficiency. What if the total hours of the clients in Fitch’ 25 agents are faraway beyond those of Adams’ 40 agents, and what is more, what if the clients working part time are actually experts who provide limited time but have great influencing effect.你说的专家有说服力，但是工作时间题目A应该比F多吧，至少一个全职，一个兼职？
When taking all these respects into account, there is a great possibility that though having a small quantity of real estate agents, the Fitch is more efficient.


Further, the author commits a fallacy that he takes for granted that the avenue last year is telling enough to convince us that Adams has better economic benefit than Fitch. He omits the situation that it happened to be so last year（结构上应该突出last year强调only）, influenced by some specific reasons such as national financial strategy, advertisement effects. Therefore, it is likely that before last year, Adams never 超过（surpass可以吗） Fitch.
What is more, the situation happened last year is not certain to continue. Fitch can win advantage by adjusting old strategy, putting forward new manage measure（s） and so on. In this sense, this evidence seems weak to support the arguer’ opinion.


Last problem I feel worthy to mention is that the arguer examples（奔放了吧） his own experience in （an）attempt to persuade us. He falls to give（provide） information about the two houses’ specific condition. It is no denying that the difference of the homes can in great degree decide the sold price and the waiting time. Also, the different years’ influence（好中式） is so great that maybe the former home was sold during the great depression and the outcome is obvious easy understanding. So without excluding the possible influential factors, the author’ conclusion is open to doubt.


To sum up, To solidify（这里的坚固是使他不改变而不是加强） his claim, the author would have to provide more detail（ed） information with regard to the two companies’ working force. In addition, more direct evidence should be demonstrated（证据被证明？cited） that the Adams has better benefit than Fitch in consisting years and the difference selling outcomes of his two homes are decided （？）by the two companies, rather than the difference in the two houses or the two years. （中式了）If the factors discussed above had been included in the argument, it would have been more convincing and logical accepted.

条理蛮清晰地