argument41 我们的九月 第十四次作业

juzijuntuanUID: 2231815

TOPIC: ARGUMENT41 - The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a food-distribution company with food-storage warehouses in several cities.

"Recently we signed a contract with The Fly-Away Pest-Control Company to provide pest-control services at our fast-food warehouse in Palm City, but last month we discovered that over $20,000 worth of food there had been destroyed by pest damage. Meanwhile, the Buzzoff Pest-Control Company, which we have used for many years, continued to service our warehouse in Wintervale, and last month only $10,000 worth of the food stored there had been destroyed by pest damage. Even though the price charged by Fly-Away is considerably lower, our best means of saving money is to return to Buzzoff Company for all our pest-control services."
WORDS: 394          TIME: 0:26:37          DATE: 2006-8-8

The author recommends that Buzzoff Company should be used for all pest-control services ,for the reasons that Buzzoff Company is more effective in saving money and provides better service than Fly-Away Pest-Control Company. But careful examination reveals several flaws in some aspects.

First, the author based his conclusion on the assumption that Buzzoff Company provides better service than Fly-Away Pest-Control Company,which is questionable. Though it is true that lase month, the value of food destruoyes by pest damage of Palm City ,which is served by Fly-Away is twice as much as  in Wintervale, which is served by Buzzoff Company, the details of the pest damage in both city is not provided, it is equally possible that the pest damage in Palm City is much heavier than that in Wintervale, and the lost of Palm City will be much more than now if it were served by Buzzoff . Such comparation is not persuasive to judge the quality of service of the two company.Thus if no further evidenc is cited, it is problemic to judge the service of Buzzoff Company better than Fly-Away Company.

Moreover, it is unpersuasive to claim that using Buzzoff Company saves money. Since it is the fact that the price charged by Fly-Away is considerable lower than Buzzoff, and no evidence is quoted to support the persumption that to use Buzzoff Company will keep the lost of food damaged by pest  lower than Fly-Away Company, it is unfire to consider that Buzzoff Company is money-saving than Fly-Away Company. Hence, the conclusion is unpersuasive.

The last, it is too hasty to claim that the use Bzzoff Company is the best means of saving money, for the lack of date of other pest-control company. The possibility to use other pest control company which  offer a higher quality of service and charge lower price than the two cited in argument is ignorned. As a result, without comprehensive comparation, it is unfair to consider that use Buzzoff Company is the best means of saving money.

To sum up, the auther based his conclusion that to use Buzzoff Company for all pest control services is best means of saving monry on the unconvincing evidenct that Buzzoff Company provides better service and lower cost than Fly-Away Company and uncomprehensive comparation with other pest controll companies. If no further evidence is offered, the argument will not convince me.

lanyelovemeUID: 2234077

ARGUMENT41 - The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a food-distribution company with food-storage warehouses in several cities.

The author recommends that Buzzoff Company should be used for all pest-control services ,for the reasons that Buzzoff Company is more effective in saving money and provides better service than Fly-Away Pest-Control Company. But careful examination reveals several flaws in some aspects.

First, the author based his conclusion on the assumption that Buzzoff Company provides better service than Fly-Away Pest-Control Company, which is questionable. Though it is true that lase month, the value of food destruoyes（destroyed） by pest damage of Palm City ,which is served by Fly-Away is twice as much as  in Wintervale, which is served by Buzzoff Company, the details of the pest damage in both city is not provided, it is equally possible that the pest damage in Palm City is much heavier than that in Wintervale, and the lost of Palm City will be much more than now if it were served by Buzzoff . Such comparation(comparison) is not persuasive to judge the quality of service of the two company.Thus if no further evidenc is cited, it is problemic(problematic) to judge the service of Buzzoff Company better than Fly-Away Company.

Moreover, it is unpersuasive to claim that using Buzzoff Company saves money. Since it is the fact that the price charged by Fly-Away is considerable lower than Buzzoff, and no evidence is quoted to support the presumption(presumption) that to use Buzzoff Company will keep the lost of food damaged by pest  lower than Fly-Away Company, it is unfire(unfair) to consider that Buzzoff Company is money-saving than Fly-Away Company. Hence, the conclusion is unpersuasive.

The last, it is too hasty to claim that the use Bzzoff Company is the best means of saving money, for the lack of date of other pest-control company. The possibility to use other pest control company which  offer a higher quality of service and charge lower price than the two cited in argument is ignored. As a result, without comprehensive comparation, it is unfair to consider that use Buzzoff Company is the best means of saving money.

To sum up, the auther based his conclusion that to use Buzzoff Company for all pest control services is best means of saving money on the unconvincing evidence that Buzzoff Company provides better service and lower cost than Fly-Away Company and uncomprehensive comparation(comparison) with other pest controll companies. If no further evidence is offered, the argument will not convince me.

嗯，主要的错误都找出来了，赞！

第三段好像论证有点不够。

这是26min写出来的文章耶~~