- 最后登录
- 2007-4-15
- 在线时间
- 0 小时
- 寄托币
- 5599
- 声望
- 6
- 注册时间
- 2005-12-6
- 阅读权限
- 100
- 帖子
- 8
- 精华
- 6
- 积分
- 3081
- UID
- 2164820
![Rank: 9](template/archy_plt8/image/star_level3.gif) ![Rank: 9](template/archy_plt8/image/star_level3.gif) ![Rank: 9](template/archy_plt8/image/star_level1.gif)
- 声望
- 6
- 寄托币
- 5599
- 注册时间
- 2005-12-6
- 精华
- 6
- 帖子
- 8
|
TOPIC: ARGUMENT117 - The following is a memo from the business manager of Valu-Mart stores.
"Over 70 percent of the respondents to a recent survey reported that they are required to take more work home with them from the workplace than they were in the past. Since Valu-Mart has not seen impressive sales in its office-supply departments in the past, we should take advantage of this work-at-home trend by increasing at all Valu-Mart stores the stock of home office machines such as printers, small copy machines, paper shredders, and fax machines. We will also increase stock of office supplies such as paper, pens, and staplers. With these changes, our office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of our stores."
WORDS: 467 TIME: 0:30:00 DATE: 2006-2-22
(提纲就不写了,请多多包涵)
Before accepting the author's recommendation that Valu-Mart store should increase its stock for home office supplies in order to gain more profits, I find the argument is not sufficiently supported by the evidence given. The author seems to unduly rely on a myriad of unsubstantiated evidence and dubious assumptions which render his conclusion totally unconvincing.
To begin with, the mere survey that 70% of the respondents reported that they are required to take more work home can lends little support to the author's suggestion. By close scrutinizing of this survey, the result of it is open to doubt. It begs many questions: who conducted the survey? When and how it was conducted? Can the respondents be representative of the whole population who are required to take more work home? It is highly possible that the sample of the survey is so limited that cannot stand for the whole workers and for that matter, perhaps the survey was sponsored by Valu-Mart store and the questions maybe leading and the subjects may response with the expected answer. Without explanations for these queries, the author's assumption that there is a trend of bringing work home and demands of home office supplies is completely groundless.
In addition, even assuming that the foregoing assertion could be confirmed, the author's inference that Valu-Mart store should increase their stock of home office machines and office supplies is still unwarranted. Primarily, there are some other explanations for the unsuccessful sales. For instance, ineffective management, misleading sale strategies, insufficient demands of the market, poor qualities of their products and so forth. Absent of resolving these factors which greatly influence their sales, the author cannot guarantee that their sales would increase depending merely on the new trend.
On the other hand, we are not informed that the current stock of such home office machines and other instruments cannot satisfy the contemporary demand of the market. Perhaps the stock of such home office supplies is adequate and even excessive. On the other hand, the author cannot hastily generalize the assumption that all their stores should augment their stock of home office machines regardless of conducting a survey or market analysis first. It is entirely possible that different areas have distinct demands for various machines and moreover perhaps some families have already purchased printers, paper shredders, papers, pens etc. As a consequence, there is no need for them to buy additional new ones. Without taking into account such scenarios, the author's conclusion which based on specious assertions could not persuade us at best.
Finally, the author unfairly assumes that by taking advantage of this trend, their departments could certainly earn more profits and even become the most profitable department in the company. However, it might not be the case. Profit is a factor of revenue and costs, perhaps the stocking fee will spontaneously increase according with the increasing stock and so their incomes. Besides, maybe another department has a better performance on the turnover and profits. Therefore, the author's prediction that their department would be the most profitable one is gratuitous.
In sum, the argument is problematic in several respects as discussed above. To bolster it, the author should provide more detailed evidence that there is indeed increasing demand for the home office supplies and this tendency would remain unchangeable in the foreseeable future. |
|