Argument 4 :) (比回) 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！

iverUID: 198348

Argument 4 第1篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：31分38秒     552 words
从2082年3月4日14时59分到2082年3月4日15时31分
------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------
In the argument the arguer conclude that Adams is superior to the Fitch Realty (FR). To support his conclusion, the arguer cites the comparison between these real estate firms in the number of the total number of real estate agents, the revenue of last year, and an example, which the arguer has experienced. Although the argument is well organized at first glance, the arguer has made some serious fallacies that he cannot convince us, as discussed below.

First of all, The arguer cites the number of real estate agents to support his conclusion. However, more agents does not follow Adams is more effective and efficient than the FR. Perhaps there is not enough workers in the agents. In addition, even there are enough worker in each agent, it remains unknown that the capacity of the workers in Adams. As we know, full-time workers do not necessarily that they can qualify the work, if they have just worked for Adams. It is entirely possible that the part-time workers in the FR are proficient and have skills to communicate with customers. Consequently, as there is no any evidence that the number in each agent of both real estate and the efficiency of them. The arguer can convince us by just the number of Adams overweighing that of the FR.

Second, to support the conclusion that the Adams is better that the FR, the arguer cites the revenue last year. However, the statistics make no sense because the revenue cannot indicate the profits of each company. For one thing, the arguer gives no specific data about the total expenses of both the two companies. If the expenditure of Adams is much higher than the FR, then the statistics cannot support the conclusion, and even undermine the view of point that Adams is superior to the FR. For another, it is not necessary that Adams can earn more than the FR although it may be the case last year.

Finally, the arguer is unfairly to assume that the Adams can sell the house more quickly than the FR. The arguer has cited his experience as the evidence; however, it is not representative of all the cases. Common sense and experience inform us that there will be great changes happening in the ten years. No evidence shows the condition of the arguer house, which sold ten years ago. It is entirely possible that it is the bad condition of the arguer's house that led to be sold in such a long period, and there may not be enough customers and people, who expect to buy house in ten years ago. However, there are more people buy and sell house, and the arguer does not mention the condition of his house last year, the price of his house. Without ruling out there possibilities that contribute to sell house in shorter period, the arguer can convince us that homes listed with Adams sell faster.

In the final analysis, the arguer cannot convince us that the Adams is superior to the FR. To support his conclusion; the arguer should investigate the specific information about each agent of Adams and FR. To better assess his conclusion, we should know the condition of the house, the demand and supply of market, and the price of the houses, which sold ten year ago and last year.

.

iverUID: 198348

自己顶一下!谢谢各位了

leonhillUID: 180388

细节就不多说了，不过我感觉在第二段中关于profit 的问题不太妥当，因为稳重并没有说到profit ,题中的意思是说对于消费者而言那一个公司更加有实力或者能够给消费者带来更加多的benefit，而profit是关于公司的经营状况在其他的题目里面可以考虑以revenue和cost来综合论证profit的问题， 单质在这个题目中似乎更加要考虑关于sale的问题，就牵扯到amount和total sale。
可以这样写：
Commensense inform that the total sales depend on two factors:~~~. Only based on the total sales, the arguer cannot demonstrate that the Adams have did a better job than Filtch.'

个人意见，我很少来跟大家一起改的，只是一个人写。因为我是学管理的，所以对这方面的东西还算比较了解。

仅供参考了。

nick530UID: 203367

占位，晚上看，不过你的打字速度确实不错

AlierUID: 159518

我觉得楼主似乎没有找准author的结论：如果你想更快并且卖得更好的价钱，应该找 A estate.
为了支持这个结论，author 的两个论据分别是：1) A is superior than F; 2) A sells homes faster than F.
而你文中所列的三个flaws中前两个实质上都是在攻击论据(1),也就是在说明A并不比F superior。这个是可以的，但是我觉得如果再加上对“论据－>论点”的攻击就更好了。
个人意见，呵呵，我也刚开始写，大家互相学习进步吧～

iverUID: 198348

最初由 leonhill 发布
[B]细节就不多说了，不过我感觉在第二段中关于profit 的问题不太妥当，因为稳重并没有说到profit ,题中的意思是说对于消费者而言那一个公司更加有实力或者能够给消费者带来更?.

以下省略...... [/B]

对，作者给出renvenue的目的应该是想表达Ａ比FR的实力强．所以应该着重批驳：renvenue－－－＞＞＞Ａ比FR的实力强是不成立的．然后可以按照leonhill 的说：
(1) the period of just one year is not long enough. Perhaps the last year's sales volume amounted to an aberration, and that in other years Adams had really sold fewer properties than Fitch.
(2) The difference between the last year's sales is due to other explanations other than the quality of the two firms. Perhaps Adams serves a denser geographic area, or anarea where turnover in homeownership is much higher for reasons unrelated to Adams's effectiveness. Or perhaps because Adams employs more agents, and each agent actually sells fewer homes on average than each Fitch agent does.
总结：Without ruling out such alternative explanations for the disparity in sales volume, the author cannot defend the conclusion that based on the this evidence Adams is superior to Fitch. (上面的这部分是北美上面的，基本没做什么改动)　我想通过这样论述后，可以驳倒作者的关于revenue作的论据　　［我前面文章中在这一点上确实写的不好］　[U]谢谢 ;) [/U]

iverUID: 198348

最初由 Alier 发布
[B]我觉得楼主似乎没有找准author的结论：如果你想更快并且卖得更好的价钱，应该找 A estate.
为了支持这个结论，author 的两个论据分别是：1) A is superior than F; 2) A s..

以下省略...... [/B]

确实犯了错误：没有攻击作者的结论．
攻击结论时可以这样：
(1) Which can sell properties faster?
(2) Which can sell properties with higher price?
(3) Which is the fee for transaction  lower, Adams or F?

Alier 说的很对，这篇就是没有批驳结论，所以显得不完整．建议大家以后写时三思而后写！
谢谢！

加油！

快乐王子UID: 194162

In the argument the arguer conclude(concludes) that Adams is superior to the Fitch Realty (FR). To support his conclusion, the arguer cites the comparison between these real estate firms in the number of the total number of real estate agents, the revenue of last year, and an example, which the arguer has experienced. Although the argument is well organized at first glance, the arguer has made some serious fallacies that he cannot convince us, as discussed below.(感觉开头 孙远风格太重哦, ^_^ 我也是的,想不出很好的开头)

First of all, The arguer cites the number of real estate agents to support his conclusion. However, more agents does not follow Adams is more effective and efficient than the FR. Perhaps there is (are)not enough workers in the agents. In addition, even there are enough worker(s) in each agent, it remains unknown that the capacity of the workers in Adams. As we know, full-time workers do not necessarily that they can qualify the work, if they have just worked for Adams. It is entirely possible that the part-time workers in the FR are proficient and have skills to communicate with customers. Consequently, as there is no any evidence that the number in each agent of both real estate and the efficiency of them. The arguer can convince us by just the number of Adams overweighing that of the FR.

Second, to support the conclusion that the Adams is better that the FR, the arguer cites the revenue last year. However, the statistics make no sense because the revenue cannot indicate the profits of each company. For one thing, the arguer gives no specific data about the total expenses of both the two companies. If the expenditure of Adams is much higher than the FR, then the statistics cannot support the conclusion, and even undermine the view of point that Adams is superior to the FR. For another, it is not necessary that Adams can earn more than the FR although it may be the case last year.

Finally, the arguer is unfairly to assume that the Adams can sell the house more quickly than the FR. The arguer has cited his experience as the evidence; however, it is not representative of all the cases. Common sense and experience inform us that there will be great changes happening in the ten years. No evidence shows the condition of the arguer house, which sold ten years ago. It is entirely possible that it is the bad condition of the arguer's house that led to be sold in such a long period, and there may not be enough customers and people, who expect to buy house in ten years ago. However, there are more people buy and sell house, and the arguer does not mention the condition of his house last year, the price of his house. Without ruling out there possibilities that contribute to sell house in shorter period, the arguer can convince us that homes listed with Adams sell faster.

In the final analysis, the arguer cannot convince us that the Adams is superior to the FR. To support his conclusion; the arguer should investigate the specific information about each agent of Adams and FR. To better assess his conclusion, we should know the condition of the house, the demand and supply of market, and the price of the houses, which sold ten year ago and last year.

感觉辩论的点不是太好,其实,卖的价格更高这个点可以好好的辨一下.

iverUID: 198348

谢谢快乐王子,看来基本语法还错的不少.!
另外:买的价格确实需要辩论的,因为买房子要考虑价格成本,和时间成本.
加油啊!
这就给你拍拍