argu179的小问题。。。求助。。求拍。。

maomao0518UID：2920485

都说应该攻击逻辑而不应该攻击论据，大家能不能看一下在179中怎么体现。。。我这个文章体现了么？？？
谢谢大家！！！

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: 283
TIME: 0:30:00
DATE: 2011/2/16

In this argument the author recommends to hire Discount Foods rather than Good-Taste Company to provide food in the Cedar Corporation's employee cafeteria the next year. At first glance, the argument seems convincing as it offers several evidences to justify that the Good-Taste Company is not as good as Discount Foods. However, through well-presented, it still suffers from some flows.

To begin with, the information given in the argument is not sufficient to show that Good-Taste Company is not worth to rehire. The fact that it is expensive may just indicate its high quality of foods provided, and the food at same level provided by Discount may be more expensive. The continuous increase of price may be a result of the rise in general goods price or inflation. Also, only three employees' complaints of the foods are not representative enough. It is entirely possible that a majority of stuff are satisfied with current cafeteria.

Also, the recommendation of Discount Foods seems to be one-sided as it is only based on the director's own experience and meaningless facts. A family-owned local company is not necessarily good because of its limitation in size, and a varied menu of fish and poultry may more or less means lack of other kinds of food. Also, perhaps the tastes of a lot of employees in Cadar are different with the director's, resulting in more complaints after using Discount. What's more, what the director tasted was just a sample lunch, then what about other foods which are not used as samples? The argument does not mention.

Also questionable is the criteria used in evaluating which company is more suitable. The director only offers the drawbacks of Good-Taste and the advantages of Discount, if they are really drawbacks and advantages. No other factors are taken into account, like whether the source of their foods are reliable and healthy, whether the style of its food are or will be liked by most people in the company, how about the service provided. There are many other aspects waiting to be considered in choosing a good food supplier and there maybe exist better companies that Good-Taste and Discount Foods.

The last question involves the argument is that the director assumes that hiring Discount will lead to improved employee satisfaction; yet this is not necessarily the case. Employee satisfaction is determined by a lot of aspects, not the cafeteria only. The amount of salary paid, whether the works are diversified, the atmosphere in the company, either of them counts more that the tastes of foods.

In sum, it seems that the director is choosing food supplier based on his own interests, which is under the risk of causing more discontent. To better support this argument, a survey should first be conducted among the employees to substantiate that the company really cause complaints. Also, when deciding which company to hire, more factors and companies should be taken into account.