argument233 G89 10号作业 !argu 还没有被拍过，帮忙看看

nkchanceUID: 188069

Argument233  第17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：30分31秒     332 words
从2005年7月10日10时4分到2005年7月10日10时30分
------题目------
The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a company that builds shopping malls throughout the country.
'The surface of a section of Route 101, paved two years ago by McAdam Road Builders, is now badly cracked and marred by dangerous potholes. In another part of the state, a section of Route 66, paved by Appian Roadways more than four years ago, is still in good condition. Appian Roadways has recently purchased state-of-the-art paving machinery, and it has hired a new quality-control manager. Because of its superior work and commitment to quality, we should contract with Appian Roadways rather than McAdam Road Builders to construct the access roads for all our new shopping malls.'
------正文------
In this argument, the arguer concludes that they should employ the Appian Roadways rather than Mcadam Road Builders to construct the access roads of their new shopping malls. To support his conclusion, the arguer cites the compare between the works of Route 101 by McAdam Road Builders and the works of Route 66 by Appian Roadways. In addition, the arguer points out that Appian Roadways bought some new machines and hired a quality-control manager. However, the argument suffers from several critical fallacies though it seems logical at first glance.

First of all, the compare between two companies is incomplete. The arguer can not rule out other possibilities rendering the difference results between their work. Without the geological condition compare, we can not simply conclude McAdam Road Builders does a poor job than the other company. It is possible that the geological layers near Route 101 more easily collapse than that of Route 66. And it is also possible that the surface of Route 101 has more buildings than Route 66, which undermine the longevity of the project. So the arguer oversimplifies the compare.

Secondly, the evidence that the arguer provide are at least two years ago. It is not as convincing as the contemporary survey. Two years are long enough for a company to develop out from the premature condition, and meanwhile long enough for a company to fall behind. The arguer fails to provide recent compare between the two.

Finally, Appian Roadways' new purchase and employment does not necessarily conduce high quality of their projects. The arguer fails to establish the casual relationship between them. Moreover, the arguer does not provide any information about McAdam Road Builders developments on its equipments and employees. It is possible that the McAdam Road Builders spend more money and energy on improving their projects quality.

In sum, the arguement is not well reasoned. To make it more convincing, the arguer should provides more information about McAdam Road Builders company and makes a more complete and just compare between the two companies.