ARGUMENT4 高频题 谢谢指教！ 必回拍

beckhangongUID: 2104229

ARGUMENT 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."

--攻击点--
1. 比较两个公司的员工，和上一年的产值，说a公司比f公司有效率。错误比较
2. 以自身例子为证，说10年前在f公司卖房子，卖了嗷嗷长时间；而上个月选择a公司代理，嗷嗷短时间就卖出去了。说明a比f卖房子快。时间不同，错误比较。
3. 有结论说想要卖房子快而且得钱多，就选ａ代理，可是压根就没有说过他卖房子得了多少钱啊。缺少论据，过早结论。

--正文--
In the argument, the arguer concludes that Adams Realty (AR) is a better choice if you want to sell your home quickly and a good price which is comparing with Fitch Realty (FR). To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer points out that AR has more agents and a higher revenue in which the home sales of AR is $24,000 more than FR. In addition, the arguer cites the example of himself that he had listed his home ten years ago to FR and it took more than four months to sell; while last year he asked AR to sell another home of him, and it took only one month. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless it is.

To begin with, the arguer thinks the number of agents is a factor affecting the ability of one firm seems questionable.  As the arguer discussed in the argument that AR has 40 real estate agents while FR only has 25, moreover many of them are part-time. Then the arguer list the revenue of two companies, interesting, the revenue of AR is better than FR, and especially the home sales are $24,000 more than FR. Thus, the arguer has got a assumption that AR must be more efficient and because of this it can make a better job in the battle. However, is AR really efficient like the author thought? It seems a fault. Because the number of agents in AR is about twice than FR and AR's revenue is only twice than FR, also the especial home sales is only 24,000 more and about 17% more, maybe a forth time more of revenue would seems more efficient.

Secondly, the author's claiming of AR could sell home faster since a comparison of his own two home selling experience is too vague to be reliable.  The arguer sold his first home about ten years ago, in that era the situation of home selling and economic environment is quite different from last year. Ten years is a so long time that everything could change. For example, ten years ago because of the bad economic state of society and not so flexible information system, people could not know the home selling information as quickly as they could, and even they knew, they can not pay all of the money in one time since lacking financing project at that time.

Admittedly, the true situation may be like the arguer said, but the conclusion is still unacceptable. The arguer said choosing AR to sell their home would be at a good price, however, the arguer had not refer any information about how mach money did he get from the two sold home each, for instance, maybe FR sold his first home slowly just for earning him more money while AR sold home quickly because they never care whether the home owner would get more money as well.  Without ruling out these and other possible factors, the author can not confidently conclude that we should choose AR instead of FR to sell our home for a quick time and a good price.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should provide more information concerning why the AR is clearly superior, only from the comparison of the number of agents and one year time revenue between them is obviously not enough. To better evaluate the argument, we need more concrete evidence that AR is really a better choice for people when they want to sell their home quickly and at a good price. Otherwise the argument is logically unacceptable.

第一次限时，超时了10分钟

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-17 at 13:25 ]

linxiao1983UID: 203095

主要的点都找到了，并予以了攻击
句法和语言都很好，所以我就不逐句批了，因为没什么可批的：）

建议：你的restate很多，这样字数是多了，可是也压制了分析和展开的空间
另外，如果字太多的话，在考试时打字也是一种压力

附上我的同题目文章，请批阅！

linxiao1983UID: 203095

The arguer claims that Adams can sell customer's house quickly and at a good price compared with Fitch. However, careful scrutiny reveals a series of logical problems, which render the argument unconvincing.

First of all, the arguer fails to provide little evidence to lend support to the assertion that Adams is better because there are more agents. It is highly possible that Fitch have a higher efficiency than Adams though there are fewer agents and many of them are only part-time. Perhaps the agents of Fitch are much more experienced than those of Adams, and some of them retired recent years and work for Fitch part-time.  But they know how to serve the customers and familiar with the real state industry. In addition,  Adams' revenue are only twice as high as that of Fitch while the work time of its agents are nearly twice,or even more, as those of Fitch, if agents of Adams are almost all-time agents. Therefore it is doubtful that Adams is more effective and more superior than Fitch.

Secondly, there is little evidence to prove that Adams is better for their home sales average is higher. For example, Fitch mainly sells the ordinary house and aims at the customers who are the nuclear family and do not need big house, while the Adams serves the wealthy people or the big family who would spend more money for big house. Thus it is certainly that Adams' home sales average will higher than that of Fitch. Perhaps the houses sold by Adams could have better sales if they are sold by Fitch.

Last but not least, the author also commits the fallacy of "all things are equal". The fact happened ten years ago is not a sound evidence to draw a conclusion that  Adams could sell more quickly than Fitch because of the comparebetween service by the two real state firms. The author assumes without justification that the background conditions have remained the same at different times or at different locations. However, it is not clear in this argument whether the current conditions are the same as they use to be ten years ago. Maybe the there are difficult to sell house ten years ago for people are poor that time.

In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands.

因为时间不够了，我就没怎么总结，唉~打字太慢了，愁，考前要狂练打字

[ Last edited by linxiao1983 on 2005-7-17 at 17:26 ]

beckhangongUID: 2104229

The arguer claims that Adams can sell customer's house quickly and at a good price compared with Fitch. However, careful scrutiny reveals a series of logical problems, which render the argument unconvincing.
你的开头模板，呵呵，用的挺熟

First of all, the arguer fails to provide little evidence to lend support to the assertion that Adams is better because there are more agents. It is highly possible that Fitch have a higher efficiency than Adams though there are fewer agents and many of them are only part-time. Perhaps the agents of Fitch are much more experienced than those of Adams, and some of them retired recent years and work for Fitch part-time.  But they know how to serve the customers and familiar with the real state industry. In addition,  Adams' revenue are only twice as high as that of Fitch while the work time of its agents are nearly twice,or even more, as those of Fitch, if agents of Adams are almost all-time (full-time)agents. Therefore it is doubtful that Adams is more effective and more superior than Fitch.
这段写的不错

Secondly, there is little evidence to prove that Adams is better for their home sales average is higher. For example, Fitch mainly sells the ordinary house and aims at the customers who are the nuclear family and do not need big house, while the Adams serves the wealthy people or the big family who would spend more money for big house. Thus it is certainly that Adams' home sales average will higher than that of Fitch. Perhaps the houses sold by Adams could have better sales if they are sold by Fitch.

Last but not least, the author also commits the fallacy of "all things are equal". The fact happened ten years ago is not a sound evidence to draw a conclusion that  Adams could sell more quickly than Fitch because of the comparebetween service by the two real state firms. The author assumes without justification that the background conditions have remained the same at different times or at different locations. However, it is not clear in this argument whether the current conditions are the same as they use to be ten years ago. Maybe the there are difficult to sell house ten years ago for people are poor that time.

In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands.

因为时间不够了，我就没怎么总结，唉~打字太慢了，愁，考前要狂练打字

总体觉得写的还行啊，就是字数稍微少一点，判断点也比50那一篇准了，不错不错，继续努力哈。

linxiao1983UID: 203095

hoho~谢谢鼓励！
50那篇忒难，

共同进步！