argument41 有劳各位版主了及朋友了。^_^

jorgeUID: 108878

41The 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 Company for all our pest-control services."

In this argument, the speaker makes a comparison with the cost of destroyed fast-food between Palm City and Wintervale using two different Pest-control company, and as well as the charge fee of the two Pest-control companies. Then the arguer draws a conclusion that the company should resign the Buzzoff pest-control company. As far as I am concerned, the speaker's argument is unfoundedly based on several factors which I will illustrate them one by one.

In the first place, the arguer commits a fallacy of false analogy rested on two different locations. In this argument, the speaker makes a comparison between Palm city and wintervale, and finds that the cost of the destroyed fast-food in Palm city warehouse by F in much higher that the cost of destroyed fast-food in wintervale by B. Hence, the company should choose the Buzzoff-company which could save the money. But the argument ignores the difference between Palm city and the W city. It is possible that the pest situation is very serious in P city and the situation in W city is very good. In order to reduce the cost of destroyed food , F company tries its best and at last lost $20,000 which would be 100,000 if it is not disposed properly. However, in the city of W where is only little pest, this company loses about $10,000. From this, people can know that if this company chooses the B company in P city, the company would lost more money. In other words, this company saves more money by choosing the F-company in Palm city.

In the second place, the argument mentions that the charge fee of F is higher than the charge fee of B, consequently, the speaker suggests that the company should choose the B-company in order to save the money. This reasoning is open to untenable. Should the company choose B-company if the charge fee is lower? What about other pest-control companies? Does the speaker make a research that the charge fee of B pest-control is the lowest? If the speaker think the lower charge fee can save the company money, the company also can choose other lower pest-control companies.

What's more, the samples of comparison conduced by the speaker are too small to make a detail conclusion. One month's comparison does not mean anything to the two companies. What about the other months' cost of these two pest-control companies? There is no evidence which the speaker should provide to tell people that the costs of destroyed foods in the other 11 months are kept the same situation as the argument says that costs of P by F are all higher than W by B. It is possibly that because that B in W are used to the pest in the warehouse in W and the F-company is recently signed with F so it doesn't familiar with the pest type. Hence, in this month, cost in P by F is higher that in W by B.

To sum up, the argument it not persuasive enough due to several flaws mentioned above, to make it more convincing, the speaker should provide more detail information about the two pest-control companies such as the other 11 months' cost of destroyed food and so on.

jorgeUID: 108878

:(

妖妖UID: 149770

In this argument, the speaker makes a comparison with the cost of destroyed fast-food between Palm City and Wintervale using two different Pest-control company(using two different Pest-control company 这个分词语怎么看都不是太舒服，是不是少点什么东西了，比如 ways), and as well as the charge fee of the two Pest-control companies.( 几遍以后终于知道在说什么了，呵呵：) ）Then the arguer draws a conclusion that the company should resign the Buzzoff pest-control company. As far as I am concerned, the speaker's argument is unfoundedly based on several factors which I will illustrate them one by one. （这句话超级象ISSUE）

In the first place, the arguer commits a fallacy of false analogy rested on two different locations. In this argument, the speaker makes a comparison between Palm city and wintervale, and finds that the cost of the destroyed fast-food in Palm city warehouse by F in much higher that the cost（the cost 去掉） of destroyed fast-food in wintervale by B. Hence, the company should choose the Buzzoff-company which could save the money. But the argument ignores the difference between Palm city and the W city. It is possible that the pest situation is very serious in P city and the situation in W city is very good. In order to reduce the cost of destroyed food , F company tries its best and at last lost $20,000 which would be 100,000 if it is not disposed properly. However, in the city of W where is only little pest, this company loses about $10,000. From this（ the data mentioned above 或者 Counting the lost and the pay）, people can know that if this company chooses ( chose 虚拟语气是不是用过去时态呢？) the B company in P city, the company would lost more money. In other words, this company saves more money by choosing the F-company in Palm city.

In the second place, the argument mentions that the charge fee of F is higher than the charge fee (that 简略点好：)) of B, consequently, the speaker suggests that the company should choose the B-company in order to save the money. This reasoning is open to untenable. Should the company choose B-company if the charge fee is lower? What about other pest-control companies? Does the speaker make a research that the charge fee of B pest-control is the lowest? If the speaker think （thought） the lower charge fee can save the company money, the company also can choose other lower pest-control companies. （22，好聪明那，用一堆的反问，直接搞定了N多的问题，并且凑到了字数，卡卡，，学习之）

What's more, the samples of comparison conduced by the speaker are too small to make a detail conclusion. One month's comparison does not mean anything to the two companies. What about the other months' cost of these two pest-control companies? There is no evidence which the speaker should provide to tell people that the costs of destroyed foods in the other 11 months are kept the same situation as the argument says that costs of P by F are all higher than W by B. (汗！阅读的简略) It is possibly （possible） that because that B in W are used  to the pest in the warehouse in W  and the F-company is recently signed with F so it doesn't familiar with the pest type（type加S）.（我觉得这句话这样写是不是更舒服点，It is possible that B is used especially for pests in W and F is directly designed to pests in F, which existed great difference caused by the different locations.） Hence (加上一句the latter efficiency is greatly deduced in the new place.) (So) in this month, cost in P by F is higher that in W by B.

To sum up, the argument it not persuasive enough due to several flaws mentioned above, to make it more convincing, the speaker should provide more detail information about the two pest-control companies such as the other 11 months' cost of destroyed food and so on.

ARGUMENT问题基本都找到了，，22，好牛，，30分钟的东西，偶3个钟头都弄不来的。羡慕的说

jorgeUID: 108878

逻辑有哪里不陀的地方没? :)

poohUID: 146994

41The 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 Company for all our pest-control services."

In this argument, the speaker makes a comparison with the cost of destroyed fast-food between Palm City and Wintervale using two different Pest-control company, and as well as the charge fee of the two Pest-control companies. Then the arguer draws a conclusion that the company should resign the Buzzoff pest-control company. As far as I am concerned, the speaker's argument is unfoundedly based on several factors which I will illustrate them one by one.

In the first place, the arguer commits a fallacy of false analogy rested on two different locations. In this argument, the speaker makes a comparison between Palm city and wintervale, and finds that the cost of the destroyed fast-food in Palm city warehouse by F in much higher that the cost of destroyed fast-food in wintervale by B. Hence, the company should choose the Buzzoff-company which could save the money. But the argument ignores the difference between Palm city and the W city. It is possible that the pest situation is very serious in P city and the situation in W city is very good. In order to reduce the cost of destroyed food , F company tries its best and at last lost $20,000 which would be 100,000 if it is not disposed properly. However, in the city of W where is has only little pest, this company loses about $10,000. 这里可以说P公司或许什么都没做，就把损失控制在了10，000。 From this, people can know that if this company chooses the B company in P city, the company would lost more money. In other words, this company saves more money by choosing the F-company in Palm city.
这个比较saved value的做法不错！
另外如果要知道哪个公司更好，可以做横向的比较，例如在P city 这两个公司哪个做得好，或者将F公司跟其他本地的公司做对比。
还应该考虑这两个地方存放粮食的多少，说不定P city 存放的多很多呢！所以这些损失一平均可能就很少了

In the second place, the argument mentions that the charge fee of F is higher than the charge fee of B, consequently, the speaker suggests that the company should choose the B-company in order to save the money. This reasoning is open to untenable. Should the company choose B-company if the charge fee is lower? What about other pest-control companies? Does the speaker make a research that the charge fee of B pest-control is the lowest? If the speaker think the lower charge fee can save the company money, the company also can choose other lower pest-control companies.注意题目说的是Even though the price charged by Fly-Away is considerably lower，看看你本段第一句是怎么说的！

What's more, the samples of comparison conduced by the speaker are too small to make a detail conclusion. One month's comparison does not mean anything to the two companies. What about the other months' cost of these two pest-control companies? There is no evidence which the speaker should provide to tell people that the costs of destroyed foods in the other 11 months are kept the same situation as the argument says that costs of P by F are all higher than W by B. It is possibly that because that B in W are used to the pest in the warehouse in W and the F-company is recently signed with F so it doesn't familiar with the pest type. Hence, in this month, cost in P by F is higher that in W by B.可以详细的说一下季节的因素，比如冬季pest少，夏季多，而F的一个月可能是处在pest高峰期本段论述力度不够

To sum up, the argument it not persuasive enough due to several flaws mentioned above, to make it more convincing, the speaker should provide more detail information about the two pest-control companies such as the other 11 months' cost of destroyed food and so on.
抓住了主要的逻辑问题，不过太粗心，导致body2的错误

兔子a za a za fighting!

蓝清UID: 158106

41The 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 Company for all our pest-control services."

In this argument, the speaker makes a comparison with the cost of destroyed fast-food between Palm City and Wintervale using two different Pest-control company,[这个好像是没有准确复述原文的意思吧] and as well as [用and 或as well as 就可以了]the charge fee of the two Pest-control companies.[这个并列句的句式没有并列] Then the arguer draws a conclusion that the company should resign the Buzzoff pest-control company. As far as I am concerned, the speaker's argument is unfoundedly based on several factors which I will illustrate them one by one.

In the first place, the arguer commits a fallacy of false analogy rested on two different locations. In this argument, the speaker makes a comparison [between Palm city and wintervale,] and finds that the cost of the destroyed fast-food in Palm city warehouse by F in [is]much higher that[than] the cost of destroyed fast-food in wintervale [by B]. Hence, the company should choose the Buzzoff-company which could save the money. [这句放到第一段会更合适]But the [argument] ignores the difference between Palm city and the W city. It is possible that the pest situation is very serious in P city and the situation in W city is very good. In order to reduce the cost of destroyed food , F company tries its best and at last lost $20,000 which would be 100,000 if it is not disposed properly. However, in the city of W where is only little pest, this company loses about $10,000. From this, people can know that if this company chooses the B company in P city, the company would lost more money. In other words, this company saves more money by choosing the F-company in Palm city.[没有横向和纵向的比较， 可能两地根本就不具可比性。]

In the second place, the argument mentions that the charge fee of F is higher than the charge fee of B, consequently, the speaker suggests that the company should choose the B-company in order to save the money. This reasoning is open to untenable. Should the company choose B-company if the charge fee is lower? What about other pest-control companies? Does the speaker make a research that the charge fee of B pest-control is the lowest? If the speaker think the lower charge fee can save the company money, the company also can choose other lower pest-control companies.[还应该考虑效率跟成本的比值]

What's more, the samples of comparison conduced by the speaker are too small to make a detail conclusion. One month's comparison does not mean anything to the two companies. What about the other months' cost of these two pest-control companies? There is no evidence which the speaker should provide to tell people that the costs of destroyed foods in the other 11 months are kept the same situation as the argument says that costs of P by F are all higher than W by B. It is possibly that because that B in W are used to the pest in the warehouse in W and the F-company is recently signed with F so it doesn't familiar with the pest type. Hence, in this month, cost in P by F is higher that in W by B.[我觉正文的第一段可以先攻击这个用作全文论据的比较。是否具有代表性以及是否具有可信度。]

To sum up, the argument it not persuasive enough due to several flaws mentioned above, to make it more convincing, the speaker should provide more detail information about the two pest-control companies such as the other 11 months' cost of destroyed food and so on.

[看完文章有不少收益。
个人的建议，希望有点帮助噢
加油，加油]

蓝清UID: 158106

No.6
41The 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 Company for all our pest-control services."

In this argument, the speaker makes a comparison with the cost of destroyed fast-food between Palm City and Wintervale using two different Pest-control company,这个好像是没有准确复述原文的意思吧 and as well as 用and 或as well as 就可以了the charge fee of the two Pest-control companies.这个并列句的句式没有并列 Then the arguer draws a conclusion that the company should resign the Buzzoff pest-control company. As far as I am concerned, the speaker's argument is unfoundedly based on several factors which I will illustrate them one by one.

In the first place, the arguer commits a fallacy of false analogy rested on two different locations. In this argument, the speaker makes a comparison between Palm city and wintervale, and finds that the cost of the destroyed fast-food in Palm city warehouse by F in ismuch higher thatthan the cost of destroyed fast-food in wintervale by B. Hence, the company should choose the Buzzoff-company which could save the money. 这句放到第一段会更合适But the argument ignores the difference between Palm city and the W city. It is possible that the pest situation is very serious in P city and the situation in W city is very good. In order to reduce the cost of destroyed food , F company tries its best and at last lost $20,000 which would be 100,000 if it is not disposed properly. However, in the city of W where is only little pest, this company loses about $10,000. From this, people can know that if this company chooses the B company in P city, the company would lost more money. In other words, this company saves more money by choosing the F-company in Palm city.没有横向和纵向的比较， 可能两地根本就不具可比性。

In the second place, the argument mentions that the charge fee of F is higher than the charge fee of B, consequently, the speaker suggests that the company should choose the B-company in order to save the money. This reasoning is open to untenable. Should the company choose B-company if the charge fee is lower? What about other pest-control companies? Does the speaker make a research that the charge fee of B pest-control is the lowest? If the speaker think the lower charge fee can save the company money, the company also can choose other lower pest-control companies.还应该考虑效率跟成本的比值

What's more, the samples of comparison conduced by the speaker are too small to make a detail conclusion. One month's comparison does not mean anything to the two companies. What about the other months' cost of these two pest-control companies? There is no evidence which the speaker should provide to tell people that the costs of destroyed foods in the other 11 months are kept the same situation as the argument says that costs of P by F are all higher than W by B. It is possibly that because that B in W are used to the pest in the warehouse in W and the F-company is recently signed with F so it doesn't familiar with the pest type. Hence, in this month, cost in P by F is higher that in W by B.我觉正文的第一段可以先攻击这个用作全文论据的比较。是否具有代表性以及是否具有可信度。

To sum up, the argument it not persuasive enough due to several flaws mentioned above, to make it more convincing, the speaker should provide more detail information about the two pest-control companies such as the other 11 months' cost of destroyed food and so on.

看完文章有不少收益。
个人的建议，希望有点帮助噢
加油，加油