argument117 [Flamy July小组]第六次a作业

heapUID: 2122790

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: 476          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-7-9

After presenting the result of the survey and several other evidence about the trend that people are more willing to work at home, the arguer recommends that they should increasing the stock of home office machines and will surely become profitable from the change. However, I find this recommendation specious in the following respects.

In the first place, by relying on the result of the survey the author depends on two assumptions: One is the samples are collected at random and the other is that the respondents are a representative of the overall population. Yet in this argument we are told nothing about how the survey is conducted or how well is represents the public opinions. It is likely that people who incline to take more work at home are more willing to respond to the survey. As a result, the trend from the survey would be not convincing.

Furthermore, even assuming that the trend of working at home indeed exists, the argument fails to provide sufficient evidence that we should increase stock of these things at all Valu-Mart stores. On one side, it is likely that our inventory is plenty for the demands so that it would be unnecessary for us to supplement the stock. On the other side, the author generalizes from what is true in one region of space to what must be true in all regions of space. Maybe some of the Valu-Mart stores are not suitable for the change, or maybe some have already sold many home office machines and require no rise at all.

Finally, the arguer draws a haste conclusion that we are able to gain profits, which is hardly persuasive. As is known, profits are determined by weighing revenues against expense. The author, on the other hand, fails to rule out the possibility that the cost in selling home office machines is relatively high. Perhaps it costs much to make these machines, or perhaps it costs a lot for transportation.

Even concede that the expense is not that high, it is still inadequate to conclude that selling home office machines will gain profits since the price is decided by both demand and supply. The trend of working at home simply shows the possibility of high demand in home office machines, but says nothing about the situation of supply. If the supply is also fairly high, however, the price will be low and it will be difficult to obtain a profit.

In sum, from what has been discussed above, I draw the conclusion that the evidence is insufficient to support the recommendation that we will make profit by adding the stock of home office machines. To be more persuasive the author needs to provide more information about how the survey is conducted. Plus, the condition of market and the cost to sell home office machines must be taken into account.