A78, 421，求各位大侠指点

kwnxkUID: 3187060

不限时写的，也不知道是什么水平的，感觉限时憋不出来啊，希望大家给与指点

78) The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a food distribution company with food storage warehouses in several cities.
Recently, we signed a contract with the Fly-Away Pest Control Company to provide pest control services at our fast-food warehouse in Palm City, but last month we discovered that over $20,000 worth of food there had been destroyed by pest damage. Meanwhile, the Buzzoff Pest Control Company, which we have used for many years, continued to service our warehouse in Wintervale, and last month only $10,000 worth of the food stored there had been destroyed by pest damage. Even though the price charged by Fly-Away is considerably lower, our best means of saving money is to return to Buzzoff for all our pest control services.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the company will save money if they return to Buzzoff for all their pest control. To support his conclusion, the arguer indicates that 20000 dollars’ worth of food had been destroyed using the service of Fly-Away, 10000 dollars more than the warehouse using the service of the Buzzoff. A careful examination of this argument would reveal that several specific evidences should be added in order to make this argument more cogent and convincing.

Firstly, the arguer must give evidence that this period of time is representative. A month is too short to make the conclusion that the services of the Buzzoff Pest Control Company are more effective. There exists much occasionality that the arguer did not consider. The Fly-Away Pest Control Company signed the contract recently; they need time to familiar with the condition about the fast-food warehouse. It is possible that when the Fly-Away Pest Control Company get familiar with the particular circumstances of the warehouse, they could prevent the food from pest damage. To make his assurance eloquent, he must provide more specific evidence to consummate his argument.

Secondly, in order to make a convincing comparison, we should also be informed that the specific information about two warehouses and the differences between two places. In this argument, the arguer only says that the warehouse in Palm City has 10000 dollars more losses than the warehouse in Wintervale. It is quite possible that the warehouse in Palm City stores much more food than the other one. 10000 is a small amount if the warehouse in Palm City stores food ten times more. There is a possibility that pests have more interest on the food stored in the warehouse in Palm City. What’s more, the arguer also fails to provide any information about differences between two cities. Given that the Palm City has more loss, we cannot accept the conclusion that the Buzzoff Pest Control Company is more effective. It is possible that the Palm City just has more pests than Wintervale.

Thirdly, evidence is absent to conclude that return to Buzzoff for all our pest control services will save money. There is no point doing so if the price charged by Buzzoff higher than losses made by the pests. It is possible that pests in different warehouse are distinctive and the Buzzoff is not good at dealing with pests in Palm City. In that case, using the service of Buzzoff may cause more loss rather than save money. Without accounting for all other explanations, the arguer cannot reasonably conclude that the company will save money if they return to Buzzoff for all their pest control.




To sum up, the arguer fails to make a conclusive argument because the evidence cited does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more convincing, additional pieces of evidence are needed to discuss the logical soundness of such argument.