Issue 233, road construction, please help me to modify

jjobbUID: 171785

----题目----
233The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a company that builds shopping malls throughout the country.

"The surface of a section of Route 101, paved two years ago by McAdam Road Builders, is now badly cracked and marred by dangerous potholes. In another part of the state, a section of Route 66, paved by Appian Roadways more than four years ago, is still in good condition. Appian Roadways has recently purchased state-of-the-art paving machinery, and it has hired a new quality-control manager. Because of its superior work and commitment to quality, we should contract with Appian Roadways rather than McAdam Road Builders to construct the access roads for all our new shopping malls."

-----提纲----

1. there are other explanations to the road quality
2. newly purchased machine and hired quality manager can not guarantee the quality
3. choice of JR can not be justified for all of locations

--------正文-------
The speaker in the memo suggests his company to contract with one particular company to construct the access roads for all of their new shopping malls. As the evidence, he compared the quality of two high ways constructed by two companies respectively. Another reason that he prefers one company over the other is because one company just purchased new paving machinery and hired a new quality-control manager. However, to me, these evidences are not strong enough to support its conclusion. The argument has the following flaws in logic:

First of all, there could be other explanations to the comparison result of those two high ways. For example, those two high ways could be located in the different places. The one seemed to have a better quality is actually in a place with mild weather and light traffic; however, the other one was cracked and marred with potholes because the severe weather and heavy usage. Router 101 could be much longer than router 66, and it could be in a geographic location that is very hard to construct the road. If any of the above situations is true, we can not judge JR was doing a better job than MR in the past.

Secondly, the other evidences can not make me to believe that JR has a better commitment to the quality. Even though they purchased new paving machinery and hired a new quality-control manager, MR could have the same paving machinery long time ago and also they had the experienced quality-control manager for a while, maybe more than one. Knowing that JR purchased the machinery and hired the quality manger recently can only make me suspect their effectiveness. According to the common sense, people need to take some time to get used to using the new equipment. Also, without knowing the experience of the new quality-control manager, we have reasons to question the quality commitment he can bring to the JR Company.

Last but not the least, evidence is lack to justified JR should be hired to construct the access roads of all malls nation wide. If JR is just a local company, contracting with them to construct roads for malls all over the country could potentially increase the cost of the project. The projects wildly spread in different locations will inevitably make it difficult for the quality control. Moreover, the speaker fails to consider whether there is other options -- such as other road construction companies. The quality of the overall roads can be better if they are contracted to different local road construction companies that are close to where the new malls are.

In sum, I will remain unconvinced unless the speaker can provide further evidence showing that JR really constructs better road than MR and it is the only choice even considering the other factors such as cost and efficiency.

lakeqianUID: 157560

issue还是argu啊？？
section 可以攻击。不完全比较。
写的还算不错吧。限时了吗？

rainy_catUID: 176169

老大说的对，写的8错。

jjobbUID: 171785

Thank you for your comments. Sorry, it should be "argument". My fault.
Also, I wrote over time. I need to learn how to write fast. Any suggestion? Thanks.