【Flyer杀G作文组】2月16-17日作业ARGUMENT241-yuqivickey

yuqivickeyUID: 2962925

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 resumés 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."
WORDS: 387
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2011-2-16 17:41:33

The argument is well-organized, but not well-reasoned. The arguer suggests that XYZ should continue using Delany Personnel Firm(D) instead of Walsh Personnel Firm(W), based on a series statistics about the employ rate, job-hunting time, staff number and branch office number. Through careful analysis, there are some logical fallacies in the argument, which make it less pervasive.

At the beginning, last year those who found jobs more quickly may not due to D but other factors. Though D may have some effects in helping employees to get hired, but for those who take initial to use D may be more aggressive and capable in nature than people who didn't use D. People using D know how to plan their career and improve themselves. Even if they hadn't use D to help them in the job-seeking, the ambition and ability of themselves will also guarantee them to find a job more quickly than those who didn't know take advantage of XYZ and D.

Secondly, the evidence is plausible that eight years ago only half of workers who used W found jobs in a year. As the arguer don't provide any detail information about the situation eight years ago, we could get a lot of assumptions. Perhaps there was a economical recession eight years ago, so the employments in the market was little for all the personnel firm including W. Or, perhaps the laid-off employees of XYZ eight years ago were not as competitive as they are now, so even with the help of W the employ rate and time was not optimistic, but now the situation may change because the general quality of employees in XYZ has raised.

Thirdly, depending on the staff number and branch offices number, the conclusion that D is superior than W is suspicious. Though the number of staff and branch office is larger, what if the staff in D is all part-time graduates with less experience? Hardly can clients believe on this apparent “big” firm. And, perhaps the working process in D with larger staff is more complex and time-consuming than the concise smaller W, and the effectiveness between them is fairly different.

In sum, the argument has some flaws and still need more evidences to support the conclusion. As far as we can make sure now, is that D charges for more expense.