- 最后登录
- 2005-9-10
- 在线时间
- 0 小时
- 寄托币
- 362
- 声望
- 0
- 注册时间
- 2005-4-1
- 阅读权限
- 15
- 帖子
- 0
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 174
- UID
- 203791

- 声望
- 0
- 寄托币
- 362
- 注册时间
- 2005-4-1
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 0
|
题目:
【4】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(542 words):
In this argument, the author recommends that if one wants his home to be sent quickly and gain more profitability, it would be wise to choose Adams because Adams is seemingly superior to Fitch, the other leading estate firm in the author’s town. At first sight, the argument appears to be somehow plausible, but after careful scrutiny, it proves to be deeply problematic and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands. The argument is logically unconvincing in several respects.
Firstly, the author believes that Adams is better than Fitch after comparing the amount of estate agents included in two firms. Admittedly, Adams has more estate agents than that of Fitch, especially many of the employees in Fitch work only part-time. However, the quality of these employees is also an important factor, which to some extent maybe outweighs the quantity of the estate agents. It is possible that the estate agents in Adams are mostly young who have never been estate agents before, while the employees in Fitch are all experts in the realm. As a result, even the amount of the estate agents and the time they work are seemingly not good as Adams, the achievements made by Fitch are still greater than that of Adams.
Secondly, the arguer finds out that the revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch and the averaged price of home sales is also higher than that of Fitch. But in this argument, the author doesn’t mention the cost of each estate firm. It is well known that profitability is a function of revenue to cost. So under the circumstance that the expense isn’t clear, it is hasty to say that Adams is superior to Fitch. Maybe the cost of Adams is much more than that of Fitch, which even outweighs the revenue of Adams. When this happens, the Adams made none profitability at all. How can the arguer arbitrarily say that Adams is a much better choice? Furthermore, the average price of the home sales doesn’t reflect the whole situation of the exchange. Are the homes sold by Adams bigger than that sold by Fitch? Are they located in a more convenient place and are there more public facilities nearby? All these kinds of factors can influence the price of the home sales.
Finally, the arguer concludes that Adams needs a shorter period of time to sell out home is unconvincing. Admittedly, the arguer’s home listed with Fitch ten years ago sold much faster than the home listed in with Adams last year. Maybe the properties of the home listed in two estate firms are not the same, which of course makes the time needed to sell out the home different. Even if the homes listed with two firms are the same, the estate market probably is in different situation at different time. It is also possible that the economy flourishes nowadays. So home can be sold much quicker.
To sum up, the reasoning in this argument does not lend strong credibility to what the author recommends. To strengthen the argument, the author should provide more detailed information about estate agents in two firms. Besides, to better evaluate the argument, we need to know the real economic situation in these two estate firms. |
|