ARGUMENT241 限时总算勉强 基本抛开模板写

cocoon_mmUID: 2259908

ARGUMENT 241 - The following appeared in a memo at the XYZ company.

"When XYZ lays off employees, it pays Delany Personnel Firm to offer those employees assistance in creating resumés and developing interviewing skills, if they so desire. Laid-off employees have benefited greatly from Delany's services: last year those who used Delany found jobs much more quickly than did those who did not. Recently, it has been proposed that we use the less-expensive Walsh Personnel Firm in place of Delany. This would be a mistake because eight years ago, when XYZ was using Walsh, only half of the workers we laid off at that time found jobs within a year. Moreover, Delany is clearly superior, as evidenced by its bigger staff and larger number of branch offices. After all, last year Delany's clients took an average of six months to find jobs, whereas Walsh's clients took nine."
字数：464         用时：0:30:00          日期：2007-3-31

The argument is not cogent when the arguer concluded that use less-expensive Walsh Personnel Firm in place of Delany is a mistake, since the evidence cited to support it is untenable. There are many reasons which I will discuss as following.

To begin with, the arguer draw his conclusion based on the assumption that the employees can benefit from the assistance in creating resume and developing interviewing skills so that they may find another job more easily, however, it may be not necessarily the case. We may think the personnel firm realy be of use just looking from the number: those who used Delany found jobs much quicker than did those who did not. But alternative explanation may be that the persons who used the personnel firm is the ones who have more responsibility, caring more about their career life and at the same time they are competitive workers, so we cannot say it is the personnel firm made them easier to find a new job, instead of they own capanility.  

Indeed, the arguer compared the Walsh with Delany in an incomparable situation which cannot lead to objective result. Maybe it is true that the Walsh did not help so much as we expected, only half of the workers we laid off at that time found jobs within a year. But it is quiet possible that it was not the fault of Walsh, possible explanation of that is during a time of economic depressing, the downsize was so popular at that time that it is hard for a man laid off find a new job, while it might be quiet a good job of Walsh for helping half of the workers we laid off find another job. Indeed, the arguer did not provide info about the Delany's working in that time, consequently we cannot take the view of Walsh is not good compared with Delany as granted. Furthermore, the arguer's claim that Delany is clearly superior for it has bigger staff and larger number of branch office has the same problem Perhaps the Walsh has likely large scale of employment and similar working condition now, which never seem no good than Delany. More or less the bigger staff and larger number of banch office maybe can not mean efficient working to a personnel Firm. And the condition of last year of the two firms does not indicate that the Delany is superior to Walsh also, since their clients may have such a different level in education and technical skill and the job aims of them are different also which cannot be compared so easily only by how long it take to find a job.

In summary, the author is arbitrary to make such an assertion but fails to provide enough evidence to support it.

月光疾风UID: 2314163

ARGUMENT 241 - The following appeared in a memo at the XYZ company.

"When XYZ lays off employees, it pays Delany Personnel Firm to offer those employees assistance in creating resumés and developing interviewing skills, if they so desire. Laid-off employees have benefited greatly from Delany's services: last year those who used Delany found jobs much more quickly than did those who did not. Recently, it has been proposed that we use the less-expensive Walsh Personnel Firm in place of Delany. This would be a mistake because eight years ago, when XYZ was using Walsh, only half of the workers we laid off at that time found jobs within a year. Moreover, Delany is clearly superior, as evidenced by its bigger staff and larger number of branch offices. After all, last year Delany's clients took an average of six months to find jobs, whereas Walsh's clients took nine."
字数：464         用时：0:30:00          日期：2007-3-31

The argument is not cogent when the arguer concluded that use less-expensive Walsh Personnel Firm in place of Delany is a mistake, since the evidence cited to support it is untenable. There are many reasons which I will discuss as following.
开头比较好，简洁而且用了几个比较新鲜的词汇，感觉不错！
To begin with, the arguer draw [draws] his conclusion based on the assumption that the employees can benefit from the assistance in creating resume and developing interviewing skills so that they may find another job more easily, however, it may be not necessarily the case. We may think the personnel firm realy [really] be of use just looking from the number: those who used Delany found jobs much quicker than did those who did not[去掉第一个did]. But alternative explanation may be that the persons who used the personnel firm is [are] the ones who have more responsibility [pl. responsibilities], caring [care，与前面并列关系就可以了] more about their career life and at the same time they are competitive workers, so we cannot say it is the personnel firm made [that makes] them easier to find a new job, instead of they [their] own capanility [capability].  

Indeed, the arguer compared [一般用现在时就可以吧，描述原文用原文时态，评述用现在时，感觉这一段时态有点乱] the Walsh with Delany in an incomparable situation which cannot lead to [an] objective result. Maybe it is true that the Walsh did not help so much as we expected, [since，加上这个连接词] only half of the workers we laid off at that time found jobs within a year. But it is quiet [quite] possible that it was not the fault of Walsh, possible explanation of that is during a time of economic depressing, the downsize was so popular at that time that it is hard for a man laid off [to] find a new job, while [改成for that matter] it might be quiet a good job of Walsh for helping half of the workers we laid off find another job. Indeed, the arguer did not provide info about the Delany's working in that time, consequently we cannot take the view of [of改成that] Walsh is not good compared with Delany as granted. Furthermore, the arguer's claim that Delany is clearly superior for it has bigger staff and larger number of branch office has the same problem Perhaps the Walsh has likely large scale of employment and similar working condition now, which never seem [seems] no good [better] than Delany. More or less the bigger staff and larger number of branch office maybe can not mean efficient working to a personnel Firm. And the condition of last year of the two firms does not indicate that the Delany is superior to Walsh also [as well], since their clients may have such a different level in education and technical skill and the job aims of them are different also [too] which cannot be compared so easily only by how long it take to find a job.

逻辑错误基本上都找出来了，不过第二段分成一两个小段为好，这一段谈了三点，可以把后两点单独拿出来组成一段。确实很少有模版的味道，这一点很值得学习。继续加油！
时间来得及的话，简单加个结尾吧

iq28UID: 2152875

看了觉得很乱
ts写的很糟糕,看了之后都不知道你下面要攻击什么问题
第二个body里面有茫茫多的攻击点
难道就不能分开段落说么?
还有思路有点晦涩
看了我很郁闷的文章


The argument is not cogent when the arguer concluded that use less-expensive Walsh Personnel Firm in place of Delany is a mistake, since the evidence cited to support it is untenable. There are many reasons which I will discuss as following.

To begin with, the arguer draw his conclusion based on the assumption that the employees can benefit from the assistance in creating resume and developing interviewing skills so that they may find another job more easily, however, it may be not necessarily the case. (ts写这么长,意思还不清楚.至少要削掉一半) We may think the personnel firm realy (really) be of use just looking from the number: (这句做ts说不定都更好) those who used Delany found jobs much quicker than did those who did not. But alternative explanation may be that the persons who used the personnel firm is the ones who have more responsibility, caring more about their career life and at the same time they are competitive workers, so we cannot say it is the personnel firm made them easier to find a new job, instead of they own capanility. (这段攻击的是可能去寻求服务的人本身就很强)

Indeed, the arguer compared the Walsh with Delany in an incomparable situation which cannot lead to objective result. Maybe it is true that the Walsh did not help so much as we expected, only half of the workers we laid off at that time found jobs within a year. (无用之话,看了半天才看出来...让我头昏了很长时间.删) But it is quiet possible that it was not the fault of Walsh, (没必要让步让这么大,直接就是明确指出) possible explanation of that is during a time of economic depressing, the downsize was so popular at that time that it is hard for a man laid off find a new job, while it might be quiet a good job of Walsh for helping half of the workers we laid off find another job. (请在前面ts明确指出你是在攻击两个公司服务的年代不同的问题.否则这一段看上去很容易让人觉得不知所云) Indeed, the arguer did not provide info about the Delany's working in that time, consequently we cannot take the view of Walsh is not good compared with Delany as granted. (其实逻辑推理的句子都很顺畅.就是ts太糟糕,看了之后不知道你这段到底要攻击什么.看了很累.反例细节做得也不错)

Furthermore, the arguer's claim that Delany is clearly superior for it has bigger staff and larger number of branch office has the same problem. (前面ts都这么写不就很清楚了么) Perhaps the Walsh has likely (没看懂) large scale of employment and similar working condition now, (整句话都不知道在说什么) which never seem no good than Delany. (没必要双重否定.读了超级便扭) More or less the bigger staff and larger number of banch office maybe can not (语病) mean efficient working to a personnel Firm. (这一句话才是精髓.相比而言前面那个perhaps不知所云.) And the condition of last year of the two firms does not indicate that the Delany is superior to Walsh also, since their clients may have such a different level in education and technical skill and the job aims of them are different also which cannot be compared so easily only by how long it take to find a job. (不好.怎么又攻击两个公司的服务对象不同了,前面已经用过一次了.直接就攻击找的快不等于找的好不就ok了嘛.)

In summary, the author is arbitrary to make such an assertion but fails to provide enough evidence to support it.

错误都找出来了
最大的问题是ts写得不好
看下面的内容就会很混乱

模版确实是抛弃的一干二净
但是最起码的规则 比如ts
还是要好好遵守的

细节内容做得不错
尤其第二个body后半段,读了很流畅(我拆分的)
继续努力