Argument41 （~4而后生~）求拍！

hezhifei2008UID: 2233976

Argument41

The conclusion in this argument is that the food-distribution should return to Buzzoff Pest-Control Company(BPCC) for saving money. To support this conclusion the author  point that the warehouse which has been killed pests by The Fly-Away Pest-Control Company(FAPCC) has over $20,000 been destroyed, but only $10,000 worth food destroyed in the warehouse taken care of by BPCC Meanwhile, the arguer assume that return BPCC is the best way to saving money. While the argument has some merits, several critical flaws seriously undermine the line of reasoning.

To begin with, the author commits a fallacy of false analogy. The mere fact that the storehouse taken responsible by BPCC destroyed $10,00 worth food than the storehouse taken responsible by FAPCC, is scant evidence to conclude that BPCC has more effective work and better service quality. Perhaps, because the two services are working in the different city and both the whether and environment in the two cities are different leading to pests in the two city are different in species, amount and food they like best, and that is to say, the two cities perhaps has different degree in insect plague. Or perhaps, the amount of storage of the two warehouse are different. Maybe the warehouse in Palm City(PC) which is serviced by FAPCC is much larger than the one in Wintervale(W), and food worth over 220,000 is only a small part of the total amount, on the contract food worth 10,000 may be a large amount compared with the small storage in the warehouse in W. And there is also author possibility that BPCC has worked for the food-distribution company for many years and know much more about the food-distribution company but FAPCC is unfamiliar with the food-distribution company leading lower working effect, and that can be changed after FAPCC familiar with the food-distribution company. In short, lacking evidence that FAPCC and BPCC are familiar with each other in the above conditions, the arguer cannot convince me that BPCC' service is better and effective than FAPCC's.

Admittedly, the author fails to prove that it is the best way to return to BPCC, and doesn't consider other method to saving money. First, the price charged by BPCC is higher than FAPCC and no evidence proves that higher fees can be contracted by money saved by BPCC and its high quality of service. Second, even if BPCC is better than FAPCC in saving money, it also can not conclude that turning back to BPCC is the best way to saving money for maybe better and cheaper pest-control company exists but is not considered by the author. Third, even if BPCC is the best pest-control company, it is possible that killing pests is not the best method to saving money. For instance, the food-distribution company can make a good market survey to satisfy supply and demand more suitable, that leads less waste in material, production and force, and also has possible to reduce storage and can reduce the money used for storing merchandise and if the warehouse is rent a part of rent can also be saved. Among these methods saving money, without any evidence the author make a subject assertion that returning to BPCC is the best way to saving money.

To sum up, the author's argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the author must provide better evidence that the working conditions of the two   pest-control company are similar and different familiarity to the food-distribution company has no affection in the working effect. And also need to consider the influence of the amount of storage. To better assert the argument I would need more information turning to BPCC is better than any other way to save money.

napUID: 196976

To begin with, the author commits a fallacy of false analogy(据说如此general的T.S.不推荐https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=175162). The mere fact that the storehouse taken responsible by BPCC destroyed $10,00 worth food than the storehouse taken responsible by FAPCC, is scant evidence to conclude that BPCC has more effective work and...