Argument117 [Victors小组]第八次作业 by solartorch

solartorchUID: 2244205

117The following is a memo from the business manager of Valu-Mart stores.

"Over 70 percent of the respondents to a recent survey reported that they are required to take more work home with them from the workplace than they were in the past. Since Valu-Mart has not seen impressive sales in its office-supply departments in the past, we should take advantage of this work-at-home trend by increasing at all Valu-Mart stores the stock of home office machines such as printers, small copy machines, paper shredders, and fax machines. We will also increase stock of office supplies such as paper, pens, and staplers. With these changes, our office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of our stores."
1, survey 概念不清，有可能基数很小，有可能人群有偏向

2，即使回家工作量增多，也没有证据表明这会新添置设备文具。

3，即使消费量上升，Valu-Mart 也不一定就会profit,也许有另外一家店服务好价格低质量高，人们根本不到valu-mart买office 用品。光是提高存储没用, 应该从其他角度比如质量。其它部门也在努力，所以most profitable不靠谱。


While it seems true that the facts presented in the above argument contribute to the idea that with increasing stock related to office usage, Valu-Mart’s office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of its stores, the evidence and reasoning provided by the author are indefensible under serious scrutiny--- in four respects.

First of all, the survey cited in this memo fails to demonstrate the inference that employers who buy their office supplies from Valu-Mart stores are generally required to take more work home. The author provides no necessary information and background about the conducted survey for me to access the survey result. We are not informed with the respondents’ genders, occupations and ages. Neither do we know whether any method has been taken to prevent the error in survey. It is entirely possible that the respondents in the survey are all staying far from Valu-Mart stores together in downtown or outskirt. Their increased working time at home won’t affect the market of Valu-Mart at all. Or perhaps the respondents in the survey are from the same company which recently increased its work intense. This circumstance made the respondents to report increased work required to be taken home. Yet in other companies, workers are not required to take work home or on the contrary take less work home. Or maybe the situation reported by the responds is not precise and exact. They were merely complaining about their busy work life under heavy burden. Either of these scenarios, if true, would undermine the credit of the survey.

Secondly, even if the work taken home by employers increased as shown in the survey, no evidence in the memo verifies the fact that people need to buy new office machines and supplies back home. For instance, maybe the work need to be done is only computer-based and able to be finished without all the office machines and supplies. Or perhaps normally the companies will provide the employers working at home with the respective office supplies stored in them. Or maybe people already had enough office machines and supplies at home. Even though they need to work home for longer time than before, they are not likely to buy new machines and supplies any more. Without provided substantiated evidence that spending more time working at home will lead to increase of consumptions on office related products, I cannot be convinced that the increased working time at home will be a trigger for the office products sale in Valu-Mart.

Finally, even though the alleged increased working hours in home causes the corresponding increase in the requirement of office related products, the author still unwarrantedly assume that this raise of demand will definitely lead to the profit increment in the office-supply department in Valu-Mart. Other alternative facts may weaken this assumption easily. For example, it is possible that people seldom go to Valu-Mart for office products because there are other stores provide better service on this area. The price is lower than Valu-Mart stores and the quality of office products are better. In that matter, the tactic of increasing stock of home office machines and office supplies in order to boost profit is premature at best. Also, the conclusion that office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of Valu-Mart stores is gratuitous. Other departments may be also improving their sales by all means. The author’s suggestion based on increasing stock can hardly reach the goal of being most profitable departments in Valu-Mart.

In conclusion, the author not only is logically unsound but also relies on several doubtful assumptions and evidences. To fully convince me, the author should provide more details and more concrete information as well as some necessary investigations.

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

117The following is a memo from the business manager of Valu-Mart stores.

"Over 70 percent of the respondents to a recent survey reported that they are required to take more work home with them from the workplace than they were in the past. Since Valu-Mart has not seen impressive sales in its office-supply departments in the past, we should take advantage of this work-at-home trend by increasing at all Valu-Mart stores the stock of home office machines such as printers, small copy machines, paper shredders, and fax machines. We will also increase stock of office supplies such as paper, pens, and staplers. With these changes, our office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of our stores."
1, survey 概念不清，有可能基数很小，有可能人群有偏向

2，即使回家工作量增多，也没有证据表明这会新添置设备文具。

3，即使消费量上升，Valu-Mart 也不一定就会profit,也许有另外一家店服务好价格低质量高，人们根本不到valu-mart买office 用品(不去买跟消费量上升不是矛盾么?)。光是提高存储没用, 应该从其他角度比如质量。其它部门也在努力，所以most profitable不靠谱。


While it seems true that the facts presented in the above argument contribute to the idea that with increasing stock related to office usage, Valu-Mart’s office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of its stores,(原因拿一个facts就敷衍过去了,结果用了这么长的句子把题目抄了一遍, 头重脚轻没什么必要也, 直接说the author's claim seems reasonable at the first glance这种套话就行了, 反正都没有信息量) the evidence and reasoning provided by the author are indefensible under serious scrutiny--- in four respects.(哪来四个?)

First of all, the survey cited in this memo fails to demonstrate the inference that employers who buy their office supplies from Valu-Mart stores are generally required to take more work home. The author provides no necessary information and background about the conducted survey for me to access the survey result. We are not informed with the respondents’ genders, occupations and ages. Neither do we know whether any method has been taken to prevent the error in survey. It is entirely possible that the respondents in the survey are all staying far from Valu-Mart stores together in downtown or outskirt. Their increased working time at home won’t affect the market of Valu-Mart at all. Or perhaps the respondents in the survey are from the same company which recently increased its work intense. This circumstance made the respondents to report increased work required to be taken home. Yet in other companies, workers are not required to take work home or on the contrary take less work home. Or maybe the situation reported by the responds is not precise and exact. They were merely complaining about their busy work life under heavy burden. Either of these scenarios, if true, would undermine the credit of the survey.(见文章: 有关ARGUMENT中的无背景SURVEY要不要批)

Secondly, even if the work taken home by employers increased as shown in the survey, no evidence in the memo verifies the fact that people need to buy new office machines and supplies back home. (主题句后先分析再举例会让例子的基础比较实在: 说明在家工作和需要家庭工作用品是不一样的, 很多可能会使作者这种假设不成立, 然后再列出可能性)For instance, maybe the work need to be done is only computer-based and able to be finished without all the office machines and supplies. Or perhaps normally the companies will provide the employers working at home with the respective office supplies stored in them. Or maybe people already had enough office machines and supplies at home. (If these facts do exist...前后句逻辑连贯)Even though they need to work home for longer time than before, they are not likely to buy new machines and supplies any more. Without provided substantiated evidence that spending more time working at home will lead to increase of consumptions on office related products(这句话很抽象, 跟主题句意思完全一样, 不如改为Without demonstrating such work-at-home asks for additional supplies...), I cannot be convinced that the increased working time at home will be a trigger for the office products sale in Valu-Mart.

Finally, even though the alleged increased working hours in home causes the corresponding increase in the requirement of office related products, the author still unwarrantedly assume that this raise of demand will definitely lead to the profit increment in the office-supply department in Valu-Mart. Other alternative facts may weaken this assumption easily.(没信息量的话, 最好进行specific的表达, 比如Lacking information on Valu-Mart's main consumers, we cannot ensure office products are reliable sources of pofits, such suspicion can be supported by many possibilities) For example, it is possible that people seldom go to Valu-Mart for office products because there are other stores provide better service on this area. The price is lower than Valu-Mart stores and the quality of office products are better. In that matter, the tactic of increasing stock of home office machines and office supplies in order to boost profit is premature at best.(这里的表达只有一个premature, 同样是很笼统, 别的公司服务好人们不去V, 如何能使V的销售计划premature呢? 要说明由于人们不会来V买OFFICE PRODUCT, 那么即使V换了可能受欢迎的家庭办公用品, 人们也还是会去别的商场, 缺乏该领域的声誉和主导地位会使作者的建议缺乏可靠性) Also, the conclusion that office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of Valu-Mart stores(even supposing home office products cann be saled well) is gratuitous. Other departments may be also improving their sales by all means.(也不一定就要改进, 可能别的部门本来就卖的多, 即使办公用品卖得再好也超不过其它的, 常识告诉我们人们在超市买的最多的是日用品, 食品....等等) The author’s suggestion based on increasing stock can hardly reach the goal of being most profitable departments in Valu-Mart.

In conclusion, the author not only is logically unsound but also relies on several doubtful assumptions and evidences. To fully convince me, the author should provide more details and more concrete information as well as some necessary investigations.

总体而言是一篇很成熟的ARGUMENT, 无论是论证还是逻辑都很到位, 但在内容表达上有很重的模版气息, 一些逻辑联系上还有所欠缺.
破题上除了SURVEY的问题(这个问题一直有争议, 实在一开始没思路的话把背好的话写上去也可以)外, 应该再考虑下改换产品的成本, 广告, 新产品的前景等等, 销售不仅仅是市场的问题.
加油~