Argument73 同主题写作 租车或卖车 大家看看思路

禾慕繁星UID: 194496

The following appeared in a memo from a manager of a car dealership.

"Ten years ago, long-term car leasing became available in our country of Mohilia as an alternative to outright car ownership, and leasing has steadily risen in popularity. For each of the last five years, the number of people leasing new cars has surpassed the number buying new cars. The average age of cars driven in Mohilia is six years; hence, if new car leases again outnumber purchases this year, it is likely that the majority of drivers will be driving leased, not individually owned, cars. Therefore, we should change the focus of our business from selling cars to leasing them.

原文逻辑：1．自从十年前开始有租车以来，租车就越来越受欢迎——因为过去五年中的每一年，租新车的人数都超过了买新车的人数。2．因为汽车的平均年龄是6年，所以，如果今年租车人数超过买车人数，那么，租车就会成为主流。——结论，要改变卖车为租车。

分析：1，关于popularity的论据一定有问题，但是想了好久总是很绕，说不明白。大家基本上都想到了，租车的人多，可能是租的次数多，绝对人数不一定多。但是，就像之前有位网友提到的，只要是租出去一次，就是一笔利润，和人数没有太大关系。后来我想，可以从租期这个破绽去切入。因为文中只是说long-term car leasing,那么，这个long-term是否有限制呢？几个月，几年？既然没有说清楚，就有懈可击。完全可以假设，人们喜欢租新车（文中也提到是leasing new cars)，所以一年租一次车。同时，很有可能，愿意租车的人群相对来说，规模变化不大，比如大概只有100个人愿意租车，这些人每年都去租车，所以，租车的市场规模就维持在100辆左右。而至于买车的人，比如说，每年只有90个人买车——符合文中每年买车人数小于租车人数的事实，但五年下来，买车的人数就有450人，也就是，卖车的市场规模达到450辆。那么，租车就没有优势了。
2．租车的average age是6年，这点肯定也是有漏洞的。平均年龄表示这辆车已经行驶了多少年，与其寿命无关。作者之所以认为第六年后主流是开租来的车，他的逻辑是这样的：首先，他以为平均年龄可以代表平均寿命，也就是说，他认为一般车开到6年以后就要报废了。其次，他是这样进行比较的：到了今年，6年前买的车都要报废，所以不管6年前买车的人多还是租车的人多，都一概清零，无需讨论；从五年前开始，每年租车的人比买车的人多，所以只要今年维持这种趋势，租车的人就要超过买车的人了。这个推理实在很荒谬！批驳起来应该不难，一个是平均年龄与平均寿命的问题，另一个就是上一段中市场规模的问题。
我觉得这篇的难点也就是上两个问题很难理清思路，而且它们之间也有交叉，是否可以两点结合起来说？
3．市场前景的问题。就算到今年，租车的人还是大于买车人数，有什么证据可以保证这种趋势持续下去呢？也许明年开始，就有很多人买车了。这点大家基本上都想到了，挺简单的。
4．利润的问题。买车和租车究竟是很不一样的。第一，租车一般还要提供维修、保养之类的，经营费用庞大；第二，卖车的价格一般比租金高得多；第三，就是第一段里提到的，如果大家都愿意租新车，那么，租过一年的车没人愿意租了，怎么处理？综上，租车还是不如卖车。

啊~~~~~~~~~这题真是费脑子，想了好久好久，到现在自己才比较满意了。我想如果这样论述，应该就能够抓住题目的主要错误了吧！

The judgment about the market potential of car leasing can be misleading. Before the dealership could accept this recommendation to chage the focus of their business, the manager should go deep into the data as well as considering the feasibility thoroughly.

To begin with, simply through the contrast of the number of people leasing new cars and buying new cars in the last five years, a clear cognition of each market is still far away. The manager's assumption is that, since more people leases cars than buying, say, on average, 100 people lease new cars per year, while 90 buy them, it can be inferred that the total number of cars leased are larger than that of cars sold. However, a simple assumed illustration, though hypothetical but legitimate, can well illuminate the problem. As there is no information about the leasing term of the cars, plus what is mentioned in the argument is "new cars", it is quite possible that the leasing terms are much shorter than 10 years, say, around one year. In this sense, although there would be 100 people who leased new cars every year, the total number those who drive leased cars remains only about 100. On the other hand, every year 90 new cars would be sold during the five years and the total number reached to 450 at the end! An extreme assumption as this is, it at least shows us the complexity of the market and thus the manager should not have drawn his conclusion so hastily.

Secondly, even if the number of people leasing new cars continues to surpass that of buying this year, we cannot accept the idea that the majority of driven cars are leased ones. According to his logic, cars bought or leased before five years ago need not be taken into consideration because they would have been discarded by the end of this year; and since during the last five years leased cars surpassed bought cars every year, the leasing drivers would be the majority of all drivers be the trend continued. The point is that the manager seems to have confused the meaning of "average age". The average age of cars only tell us the years for which the cars have been driven, but informs us of nothing about how long the cars would be still in use. Perhaps many of the cars can be driven for over decades, supposing they are of perfect quality. Then, while the number of bought cars accumulates year by year, the number of leased cars remains at a certain level(or at least does not go up and up as the former does), it would be hard to perdict the relative market share of the two businesses.

In addition, we can find no information or clue of the future development of the market in this augument. Would the popularity of leasing cars, if true, still increases after this year? Market can change. If the prices of bought cars decrease, say, because of the lower costs of production, the subsidy from the government and so forth, people may turn to buying cars instead of leasing. Or perhaps quite a part of people who have been leasing are just saving money to buy new cars, and once they have saved enough, they would not have to lease cars any more. Without considering these possibilities, the manager's confidence is pale.

Finally, is leasing cars sure to be more profitable than selling cars? As we know, it is usually the responsibility of the lessor for the maintenance of the cars. If the dealership is thinking about the recommendation, he should take this part of operation costs into consideration. Furthermore, the leasing prices might have already been much lower than the selling prices. Then how could the manager guarantee this change to be profitable if this possibility of low income and high input happened to be the truth?

In sum, unless enough convincible evidences of the prosperity of leasing market and the profitability of leasing business are presented, it would be advisable for the dealership to reject this suggestion.

PG小EUID: 2667891

第一段那个数字论证很精彩