argument 4 高频题 36分钟我才完成 郁闷 大家帮忙看看

yasserUID: 159429

Argument 4
------题目------
The following was posted on an Internet real estate discussion site.
'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.'
------正文------
The arguer concludes that of the two leading real estate firms, Adams Realty is better than Fitch Realty. To substantiate his conclusion, the arguer cites his own personal experience of contacting with these firms. The argument is problematic in several critical flaws.

First, the fact that Adams has 40 real estate agents and Fitch has 25, lends no strong support to the conclusion. Perhaps, Adams's number of estate agents is more than what it needs and Fitch's number can meet its requirement of operation. Or perhaps the efficiency of estate agents at Fitch is higher than that at Adams. Besides, it is entirely possible that the number of people who work part time take a small proportion of overall people in Fitch. Therefore, without considering these possibilities, the conclusion is unconvincing.

Secondly, aside from no sufficient evidence for the assumption that Adams is superior on the number of estate agents, the arguer assumes that Adams is better because of its more revenue. However, this is simply not the case. More revenue cannot automatically lead to more profit. Profit is a factor of not only revenue but also costs. The costs of the houses and other costs associated with employee will offset the additional revenue. In addition, it is very likely that the Fitch's $ 144,000 house may be more welcome for local people because income of people is not very high. As a result, unless the arguer takes these feasible explanations into account, I cannot accept the assumption that Adams is better than Fitch on profit.   

Thirdly, Even if Adams is better than Fitch on profit, the arguer cannot convince me that on the efficiency of selling houses, Adams can beat Fitch, only due to the experience of the arguer. Perhaps, economy condition ten years ago is better than now. The need of house from people is higher than now so that the house of the arguer can easy to sell. Or perhaps, the house sold by Adams is cheaper. Factor such as price, has some bearing on the speed of selling house. In short, to properly conclude that Adams is better than Fitch on selling the house of the arguer, the arguer should rule out all other possibilities and provides more detail information.

In sum, the argument is unwarranted as it stands. To strengthen the conclusion that Adams is superior, the arguer should consider the possibilities about the revenue and the number of agents. Besides, the arguer should provide more information about two houses selling.

乒乓球爱上九月UID: 162925

先帮别人改改吧. 找个parterner :)

朽木白哉UID: 195804

First, the fact that Adams has 40 real estate agents and Fitch has 25, lends no strong support to the conclusion. Perhaps, Adams's number of estate agents is more than what it needs and Fitch's number can meet its requirement of operation. Or perhaps the efficiency of estate agents at Fitch is higher than that at Adams. Besides, it is entirely possible that the number of people who work part time take a small proportion of overall people in Fitch. [最好再讲part-time也不一定比full-time差] Therefore, without considering these possibilities, the conclusion is unconvincing.

Secondly, aside from no sufficient evidence for the assumption that Adams is superior on the number of estate agents[可以不要这句 有点罗嗦], the arguer assumes that Adams is better because of its more revenue. However, this is simply not the case. More revenues cannot automatically lead to more profit. Profit is a factor of not only revenue but also costs. The costs of the houses and other costs associated with employee will offset the additional revenue. In addition, it is very likely that the Fitch's $ 144,000 house may be more welcome for local people because income of people is not very high. As a result, unless the arguer takes these feasible explanations into account, I cannot accept the assumption that Adams is better than Fitch on profit. [文中没有这个假设啊？assumes that Adams is better because of its more revenue  说清楚比较好]

Thirdly, Even if Adams is better than Fitch on profit, the arguer cannot convince me that on the efficiency of selling houses, Adams can beat Fitch, only due to the experience of the arguer. Perhaps, economy condition ten years ago is better than now. The need of house from people is higher [stronger] than now so that the house of the arguer can easy to sell. [是去年要卖的快些吧？？？？] Or perhaps, the house sold by Adams is cheaper [than the price F may sell ]. Factor such as price, has some bearing on the speed of selling house. In short, to properly conclude that Adams is better than Fitch on selling the house of the arguer, the arguer should rule out all other possibilities and provides more detail information.

In sum, the argument is unwarranted as it stands. To strengthen the conclusion that Adams is superior, the arguer should consider the possibilities about the revenue and the number of agents. Besides, the arguer should provide more information about two houses selling.

lunaticUID: 150745

我觉得这篇文章有点问题，
首先就是原文的结论，我觉得原文的结论人们应该找Adams卖房，所以论点应该是找Adams卖房未必是明智的
作者通过比较两个公司的人数，收入，卖房平均价格和自身经历的时间来得出结论
如果只把 “Adams Realty is better than Fitch Realty”似乎不太合适
那么，这样的话第二段和第三段论述基本不能支持新的论点

朽木白哉UID: 195804

感觉上思路不是很清晰~
有点有理说不清的感觉

而且主要攻击的应该是 不一定找A卖房子就好~