argument4 新东方给我改的文章，奉献给大家

paisleyUID：64183

Topic: The following was posted on an Internet real estate discussion
site.
"Of the two leading real estate firms in our town-Adams Realty and Fitch
Realty-Adams is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents. In
contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover,
Adams' revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch, and
included home sales that averaged $168,000, compared to Fitch's $144,
000. Homes listed with Adams sell faster as well: ten years ago, I
listed my home with Fitch and it took more than four months to sell;
last year, when I sold another home, I listed it with Adams, and it took
only one month. Thus, if you want to sell your home quickly and at a
good price, you should use Adams."
  
The arguer claims that Adams Realty is a better choice if one wants to
sell his/her home quickly at a good price. To support his conclusion,
the arguer makes three comparisons between the two firms in terms of
agent number, last year revenue and average price. In order to make this
claim more believable, a personal experience is cited as an example.
Unfortunately the argument falls apart under careful examination.
  
(Good start, but the student is arguing with a statement, not an
opinion, so should be in third person, using the example as an
example)
  
The topic claims that Adams Realty is a better choice if you want to
sell your home quickly and at a good price. To support this conclusion,
three comparisons are made between the two firms: the number of
agents employed, last year's revenue and the average price of each house
sold. In order to give this claim more substance, a personal experience
is cited. Unfortunately, the argument falls apart under close
examination.
  
The comparisons are half-baked therefore lend little help to support the
conclusion. In the first comparison, the arguer tells us that Adams has
more agents than Fitch and many of Fitch's agents work only part-time.
Obviously, he thinks the more agents the better and full-time agents
are better than part-time, which is totally unfounded. Granted his
assumption, we could still find fallacy that he does not tell us whether
Adams' agents are part-time or not. What if they are all part-time
job?
(Separated long par into three more sensible ones. Very well made, a
good essay so far all round. I liked the use of "half-baked"
particularly.
  
The comparisons are half-baked, and therefore provide little to
support the conclusion. In the first comparison, it is stated that Adams
has more agents than Fitch, and that many of Fitch's agents work only
part-time. This is used to prove that the more agents a real estate firm
has, the better it is, and that full-time agents are better than
part-time agents. This is totally unfounded. And besides, we do not know
if Adams' agents are part-time or not. What if they are all
part-time?
  
In the second comparison, the arguer simply thinks more revenue means
better achievement. It seems plausible at the first glance, but if we
don't need to go very far to see its absurdity. Where does its revenue
come from? Clearly, it charges people who sell/buy the house. Thus
high revenue can possibly mean high charge, which is no good for
clientele. Even if we accept that Adams had better achievement last
year, a year is too short a time period to prove Adams is superior.
  
(A good par. Added in year and months in last sentence to break it up.
Otherwise, good.)
  
In the second comparison, the argument is used that the higher the
revenue, the better the firm must be. At first glance this seems
plausible, but we don't need to go far to see its absurdity. Where
does Adams' revenue come from? Clearly, the firm charges a commission to
people who sell or buy their house. So higher revenue can also mean
that the firm is charging higher rates, which is bad for the customer.
Even if we accept that Adams had better results last year, 12 months
is too short a period to determine relative success or failure.
  
The third comparison provides us the average price of the home sold by
each company. However average price tells us little about the price at
which our home can be sold, since the arguer provides us no
information about the homes they sold. It is fairly possible that the
same house can be sold at a higher price by Fitch than by Adams and
the difference in the average price results from different home
qualities.
  
(The argument is beginning to fall apart here, but never mind. The
English remains good, though I've changed a few things around
grammatically, as well as using "disparity" and "forthcoming.)
  
The third example compares the average price of each house sold in order
to gauge success or failure. Yet this merely tells us something about
the price at which each house can be sold, as no other information is
forthcoming. It is possible that Fitch could sell a single house for a
higher price than Adams could. So the disparity in average prices simply
reflects the varying quality of each house.
  
The arguer fails to count in other factors that may affect the time used
to sell a home. Whether a home is easy to be sold is determined by
the price, the quality, the need, the time and firm's ability. If, 10
years ago, the arguer set his home at an excessively high value, or
the quality of the home is too poor to be sold, or nobody is
interested in a house like his, or even it is during an economical
winter, it would be very difficult for him to sell his home. Otherwise,
selling a home may be comparatively easy as the arguer did last year.
Although the discrepancy between the two firms may account for the
different selling speed to some extent, the effect is vague without
integrated information of other factors.
  
(I totally stripped out the second and third sentences to list good
and bad factors separately. And added a longer sentence in to explain
the difference between detrimental factors and an unsuitable price,
which are different. Otherwise, okay.)
  
The main problem here is that other factors that affect the sale of a
house are ignored. Whether a house is easy to sell or not depends on
price, quality, demand and time available, in addition to the firm's
ability. Factors that make it hard to sell a house include bad state
of repair, lack of interest and economic depression. It may also be hard
to find an acceptable price for a house if it was overvalued when
sold to its current owners. None of these factors seem to have been a
problem for the seller used in the subject example. So though
discrepancies between the two firms may account for some sales
differences, they cannot account for them all.
  
As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. The argument could be
improved if the comparisons are supported by more cogent more integrated
evidence. It could be further improved by presenting full background
information about all the factors that may affect the selling of a home.
  
  
Nice end, added "dossier" in and "compelling evidence". Seemed to get
their balanced view and logic back by the end of the essay).
  
As it stands, the argument is badly thought-out. It would be improved
with more compelling evidence to back up the comparisons. And it could
be further improved by presenting a full dossier of factors that may
affect the sale of a house.
  
Presented Insightful Position?  Reasons/Examples Persuasive?    Ideas
well-focused and well-organized?        Effective vocabulary and sentence
variety?        Many Violations of Conventions?
Y       Y       Y       Y       Y
  
  
  
--
听老婆话
跟党走

maniacUID：155886

提纲：

论断：找Adams卖房快，房价好。因为A是最好的，它有更高的年收入，更多的代理，它卖的房子平均价高。而且本人前后9年的经历也证明了这一点。
•论断很武断。找好的代理公司并一定能保证卖房快，房价好。房子本身的特点是最重要的。
•论断提供的证据不足以说明A更好。年收入高，但员工多，平均下来很可能工作效率低。而平均价格也没有说服力，太笼统，各自经营房子的种类没说。
•本人的经历忽视了一个很重要的问题，九年的时间，不仅房地产业会有很大变化，社会变化也会很大。科技的发展，社会需求的变化。另外他两处房子的差别也没提。
结论：论断看起来似乎很有条理，证据也很多。但结论却很武断，也很不工平。要评价两家公司的业绩，除了年收外还应该包括很多内容比如工作效率，对市场的了解等等。而要想更快更好地卖出房子，不仅要找一个合适的房产公司，还需要给自己的房子定好位。