【自己写的ARGUMENT】就要考AW了，求众G友帮忙修改，万分感谢！

谭帅UID: 2938992

"Of the two leading real estate firms in our town-Adams Realty and Fitch Realty-Adams is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents. In contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover, Adams' revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch, and included home sales that averaged $168,000, compared to Fitch's $144,000. Homes listed with Adams sell faster as well: ten years ago, I listed my home with Fitch and it took more than four months to sell; last year, when I sold another home, I listed it with Adams, and it took only one month. Thus, if you want to sell your home quickly and at a good price, you should use Adams."
字数：436
用时：00:30:00
日期：2011/2/28 22:26:40

In this argument, the author standing on a viewpoint that by selling-condition evaluating Adams and Fitch, the former company is willing to earn more money for his clients than the later one, so everybody should believe the Adams and choose it. However, this criticism actually fails to consider some other essential factors which also have effect on the result of the comparison between the two firms. So, what the author has argued appears to be reasonable, but virtually, it still lacks further accurate analysis.

As far as the condition of two company are concerned, though asserting that Adams have more full-time agents than Fitch and most of the worker in Fitch are just doing a part-time job, the arguer could not draw an exhaustive conclusion because of his inaccurate analogy. Does the part-time agents are always defeated by the so-called real agents? Absolutely not.
Diverse jobs could give a person not only wider social networks, but also a more intensive and special angle when dealing with some tough things. Therefore, the houses might sell more quickly through the agents (in Fitch)'s friends, and Fitch would eventually win this house-selling contest.

Additionally, the flawed hypothesis underlies the reasoning: the higher selling price (revenue) means more profit. Actually, it is absolutely unsustainable. Assuming that if most the houses selling by Adams are luxurious houses, could a price of $168,000 be a remarkable price? If so, it would reasonable to conclude that the profit of Adams might just a little, even the firm is still in deficit. Conversely, if the Fitch's major commerce are selling normal or even smaller houses, a average price of $144,000 should lead to opulent profit, and again, Adams become the loser in this comparison.
Apart from all of the critical reasons claimed above, the arguer still is misunderstanding that the fact of the selling race. It should be clear that striking a target in ten years ago could not equal to making a deal in last year. The quality of people's life and the supervision of the society might be so different that such a judgment could just make no sense.

Consequently, in spite of what the editorial has stressed might have been attempting to mislead us, we should be clear that, indeed, this argument has shown a lack of reasoning skills and grounds of talking points. So it should be preferable to carry on investigating which company is more effective. Thus, any assumption aimed to confirm the better house-selling firm must be based on more thorough investigation to collect sufficient data in order to narrow down the range of actual differences between them.