[风雨与共] 12.20 argument提纲 by【5】

arksapmis30UID: 2973097

15The following appeared in a newsletter offering advice to investors.

"Over 80 percent of the respondents to a recent survey indicated a desire to reduce their intake of foods containing fats and cholesterol, and today low-fat products abound in many food stores. Since many of the food products currently marketed by Old Dairy Industries are high in fat and cholesterol, the company's sales are likely to diminish greatly and their profits will no doubt decrease. We therefore advise Old Dairy stockholders to sell their shares and other investors not to purchase stock in this company."

1，调查值得怀疑，样本总数，样本范围都没有给出来，很可能样本数量低，不具有代表性，而且就算他们希望减少食品的脂肪含量和卡路里，也不代表他们就不去买这些食品了。
2，低脂食品很多不代表这些产品的销量好，也不代表普通产品的市场份额就被抢走了。相反商店里囤积大量低脂食品正是这些产品卖的不好的证据。
3，就算低脂食品很流行，也不代表普通产品就无利可图了。一系列因素可以决定普通产品的盈利，比如市场策略，比如降低成本，比如市场主流导向还是以传统为主。


16The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper from a citizen of the state of Impecunia.

"Two years ago our neighboring state, Lucria, began a state lottery to supplement tax revenues for education and public health. Today, Lucria spends more per pupil than we do, and Lucria's public health program treats far more people than our state's program does. If we were to establish a state lottery like the one in Lucria, the profits could be used to improve our educational system and public health program. The new lottery would doubtless be successful, because a survey conducted in our capital city concludes that citizens of Impecunia already spend an average of $50 per person per year on gambling."

1，
首先lucria的教育和公共健康是否真的得到了发展值得怀疑。为每个小学生花更多的钱不意味着整体教育质量就上涨了，哥们，还有初中生，高中生，大学生呢？这些都不管了？从lucria的public health program治疗的人数比impecunia多这一点得出他们的public health就比我们好也可笑的很，治疗的人多不代表治疗的质量好，我们可能也可以治疗这么多人，而且质量比他们好，只不过我们这边人身体好，不怎么生病而已。而且就算lucria的教育啥的真的是发展了，也不能肯定是因为lottery提供的资金，有可能是更好的政策导致的。
2，
就算lottery的设立的确和lucria的教育啥的得到发展有关系，也不代表同样的情况会适用于impecunia，两州的情况会有很大的不同，有可能我们这的人都抵制lottery呢？
3，
就通过我们州主要城市的情况的调查来推广到全州未免太过武断，以小推大，太儿戏。





17The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.

"Walnut Grove's town council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal (which has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years) to ABC Waste, because EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, whereas ABC's fee is still $2,000. But the town council is mistaken; we should continue using EZ. EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Moreover, EZ—which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks—has ordered additional trucks. Finally, EZ provides exceptional service: 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance."



1.·论断的前提非常不公平，他认为A不能提供像E一样让人满意的服务，却没有给出足够的证据。除了提到A公司每周收一次垃圾外，论断没有提供任何有关A公司的服务纪录，比如信用问题、采用何种技术等等。而该城在过去10年里一直用的E，市民包括论者很可能都缺乏对A的了解。这样在E提高了服务费用的前提下，论者没有理由不让市民尝试使用较便宜的A。
2. ·论断使用的论据不并具说力。论者说E每周收两次，而A只有一次。但是有没有可能每周一次就已经足够了？论断都没有提供这方面的资料。我们没能排除每周两次的服务是多余的，虽然这多出的50%的服务只多收了25%的费用，但对于市民来说都是一种浪费。另外论断说E最近新添了卡车，还会提供更多的服务。但这两者之间却没有明显的因果关系。首先论断没有提供证据新卡车一定用于该市的垃圾处理，我们就不能排除这有可能是A公司新扩展了业务，比如为另一个城市服务，这样论者所说的更多的服务就不可能实现。再有就是是否需要的问题，如果说现有的已经多余了，再添新的更多余。有关论据中提到的调查也很有疑点，首先论据没有提供资料调查采取了任何措施以保证调查样本具有代表性，我们不排除有可能对E满意的人才接受了调查，或是寄回调查问卷，而且调查也没有显示人们愿意为这种满意再多支付25%的费用。
3.

·论断认为E更好所以还要用E，结论做得太草率。论断甚至没有告诉我们E为什么突然要提价，价格是否合理。