Argument41 （~4而后生~）求拍！

virilityUID: 2310179

题目：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."
字数：316          用时：45:00         日期：2007-3-26
In this argument, the author concludes that their best means of saving money is to return to Buzzoff Company to all their pest-control services. At first glance, the author's reasoning seems to be appealing, while clearly examining the author's reasoning, we may find that it is unconving. The argument contains several facets that are questionalble.
    Fristly,Palm city and winterval are a two different cites located in differenet areas, which lead to no basic for us to compare the Past-Control company in Palm city with the Buzzoff Pest-Control company in Wintervale.The two different cities may have diffent climate, different species,different geography.
It is no deny that many difference between these two cites, we can not arbitrarily choose company using the worth of food which had been destroyed.
    Secondly,the arguer makes an incomplete comparison of the Fly-Away Pest-Control Company and the Buzzoff Pest-Control Company. Addtional factors should be taken into accout for saving money. There are so many factors can contribute to saving money that we can not only focus on worth on worth of the food which have been destroyed and the the price charged by two companies.
    Thirdly, the arguer trivializes the factor of price as means to save money. The price of the company sometimes  is large so that it is not advisable to neglect the factor of price. If the price difference between the two companies is higher than the worth difference of food which had been destroyed, it is better to choose the company whose price is lower.In the arguement, the price charged by Fly-Away is considerbly lower, so we must take the factor of price into accout.
     To sum up, the conclusion lacks of credibilty. Regardless of who the author is , he or she has overlooked or choen to ignore many aspects of his or her conclusion. To strengthen the cnoclusion, the author should give more evidence about the above-mentioned possibilities.

virilityUID: 2310179

顶

napUID: 196976

:funk:晕，回去补充一下再发吧，感觉这个明显没https://bbs.gter.net/thread-636437-1-1.html那么好