ARGUMENT117、200【0710G-小猪快跑小组】第1次作业 By Shania.33

Shania.33UID: 2363464

ARGUMENT117 - 字数：473          用时：00:30:00
   
In this discussion, the arguer advocates Valu-Mart stores should take advantage of work-at-home trend and increase their stock of home office machines and supplies. As a result, their office-supply departments will become the most profitable component. Additionally, the arguer cites a survey that over 70 percent of the respondents expresses they are required to take more work home. In my point of view, the analysis suffers from several critical flaws as follows.   

To begin with, the premise of the conclusion is weak. The arguer simply assumes that they should take advantage of this work-at-home trend by increasing at all Valu-Mart stores the stock of home office machines, but does not provide any evidence to substantiate this is the case. It is true that the increasing of the home office machines will be improved by the rise of work-at-home trend, but the arguer must show that trend is exactly happened. Otherwise, base on this slim information, we can never evaluate the arguer's conclusion.

Second, the most egregious reasoning error is the fallacy of hasty generalization. The arguer groundlessly assumes that the more people required to take more work home, which must bears some contribution to taking advantage of the home office machines and make the office-supply departments become the most profitable component of their stores. It is highly possible that does not reveal about such conclusion. For instance, do that people must work at home and need those home office machines? Another possibility is they also could do their uncompleted task in the office. In addition, is there anyone else of stores that sell home office machines except of Valu-Mart? Maybe there are other stores also sell such home office machines in a cheaper price that Valu-Mart stores does not know about. What's more, even if the home office machines are increased sold out, which does not mean the office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of Valu-Mart store. The arguer should consider the sell instances of other departments. Without ruling out these and other possible factors, the arguer can not confidently conclude the unconvincing analysis.

In addition, it is fallacious to draw any conclusion on the basis of such limited evidence. The survey results as reported by the arguer are too vague to support any firm conclusion: over 70 percent of the respondents required to take more work home. The arguer fails to provide assurances that these respondents are representative of the overall population of people who required taking more work home. Additionally, we are not informed how many people were surveyed but did not respond. Thus, as it stands the survey lends to credible support to the arguer’s conclusion.

As it stands, the statement is neither sound nor persuasive. To make it logically acceptable, before any final decisions are made by the Valu-Mart, the arguer should judge of all possible alternatives.

==============================提纲=====================================

ARGUMENT117
1.        论断：VM的办公用品部门会成为最盈利的部门。因为V-M应该利用回家办公人数增多的趋势，增加他们家庭办公用品的供应和库存，又因为一个调查超过70%的回应者反应他们被要求回家完成的工作量比以前多。

2.        前提不成立。家庭办公用品的盈利的前提是利用回家办公人数增多的趋势，没有证据表明回家办公人数真的增多了。被要求回家完成的工作量比以前多，不代表工作就一定会在家完成。

3.        论断草率。被要求回家完成的工作量比以前多，意味着一定会回家完成吗？可能在办公室加班完再回家。即使回家完成，一定要用家庭办公用品吗？有的职业可能不需要。有人也许不会花钱买。即使一定要用家庭办公用品，非要去V-M购买吗？也许周围有更便宜的供应商。

4.        论据不充分。首先调查的人群可能不具备全体人群代表性，其次不知道调查了没回应者的态度。调查模糊，无说服力。

5.        结论：作者应该考虑更多的情况，更确切的调查，以及增加盈利的办法。


ARGUMENT200

1.         论断：做广告来吸引患者的牙医应该定位男性顾客，并同时强调他们的麻醉技术和他们的职员对于紧张和痛苦患者的敏感度。因为男性在接受牙科治疗时比女性更容易感到痛楚，又因为有牙医的统计表明看牙医时男性昏厥的次数是女性的三倍。

2.         论断，要广告，草率The most egregious reasoning error is the fallacy of hasty generalization.麻醉技术高就意味着不会昏厥吗？没有论据表明昏厥到底由什么引起。牙医职员对于紧张和痛苦患者的敏感度好，就能代表他们能减少病人痛苦吗？技术高超更关键。

3.         论据不充分。统计显示男性比女性晕的多，首先，男女总数没有，数据模糊，缺乏代表性和说服力representative of the overall population & persuasive；其次，可能男性得牙病的多，且病症比女性严重serious，而女的根本就不愿去看牙医；最后，可能女性也紧张只是表现方式不一样。

4.         前提不一定成立。做广告的前提是男性在接受牙科治疗时比女性更容易感到痛楚，文中没有证据表明这个前提是一定成立的。仅仅是个统计调查说看牙医时男性昏厥的次数是女性的三倍，昏厥还可能是其他的原因。

5.         结论：作者需要更精确的统计分析来说服我们，需要用提高医学技术等其他方式吸引顾客。

[ 本帖最后由 Shania.33 于 2007-7-18 23:39 编辑 ]

strokes7UID: 2262256

楼主就是那位去考了，机器坏了的？
加油吧！

Shania.33UID: 2363464

楼上你认错人了。。。汗

shalonbasUID: 2184474

汗~~~:funk:

guangxu3559UID: 2311047

In this discussion, the arguer advocates Valu-Mart stores should take advantage of work-at-home trend and increase their stock of home office machines and supplies. As a result, their office-supply departments will become the most profitable component. Additionally, the arguer cites a survey that over 70 percent of the respondents expresses（应该是express） they are required to take more work home. In my point of view, the analysis suffers from several critical flaws as follows.   

To begin with, the premise of the conclusion is weak. The arguer simply assumes that they should take advantage of this work-at-home trend by increasing at all Valu-Mart stores the stock of home office machines, but does not provide any evidence to substantiate this is the case. It is true that the increasing of the home office machines will be improved by the rise of work-at-home trend (怎么理解？increasing和improve重复), but the arguer must show that trend is exactly happened. Otherwise, base on this slim information, we can never evaluate the arguer's conclusion.

Second, the most egregious reasoning error is the fallacy of hasty generalization. The arguer groundlessly assumes that the more people required to take more work home, which must bears some contribution to taking advantage of the home office machines and make the office-supply departments become the most profitable component of their stores. It is highly possible that does not reveal about such conclusion. For instance, do that people must work at home and need those home office machines? Another possibility is they also could do their uncompleted task in the office. In addition, is there anyone else of stores that sell home office machines except of Valu-Mart? Maybe there are other stores also sell such home office machines in a cheaper price that Valu-Mart stores does not know about. What's more, even if the home office machines are increased sold out, which does not mean the office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of Valu-Mart store. The arguer should consider the sell instances of other departments. Without ruling out these and other possible factors, the arguer can not confidently conclude the unconvincing analysis.

In addition, it is fallacious to draw any conclusion on the basis of such limited evidence. The survey results as reported by the arguer are too vague to support any firm conclusion: over 70 percent of the respondents required to take more work home. The arguer fails to provide assurances that these respondents are representative of the overall population of people who required taking more work home. Additionally, we are not informed how many people were surveyed but did not respond. Thus, as it stands the survey lends to credible support to the arguer’s conclusion.

As it stands, the statement is neither sound nor persuasive. To make it logically acceptable, before any final decisions are made by the Valu-Mart, the arguer should judge of all possible alternatives.

文章很不错,分析的也很到位,就是第二段的证据略显不足，应该再深入的剖析！

Shania.33UID: 2363464

感谢光绪的细心修改，不知道你和历史上那个皇帝有啥渊源么？:)

第二段的语句确实是我写重复了，想要论据的更充分时间还是很紧张，就这就很赶了，呵呵

shalonbasUID: 2184474

In this discussion, the arguer advocates Valu-Mart stores should take advantage of work-at-home trend and increase their stock of home office machines and supplies. As a result, their office-supply departments will become the most profitable component. Additionally, the arguer cites a survey that over 70 percent of the respondents expresses they are required to take more work home. In my point of view, the analysis suffers from several critical flaws as follows. [对原文的概括语句不够精炼，虽然字数和其他人的差不多，但表述方式上显得有些拖沓。我觉得guangxu在这方面写的很标准，摘录如下，建议体会体会，呵呵。
In this argument, the arguer concludes that Valu-mart should increase the stock of home office machines and office supplies and by taking this strategy the office-supply departments will become the most profitable component. To prove the conclusion, the arguer cites a recent survey result and using the unimpressive sales in the office-supply departments in the past. As it stands, this argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws. （向guangxu致敬，嘿嘿）]  

To begin with, the premise of the conclusion is weak [好像很少见人用weak这个词，不过具体用什么最恰当我也还没想出来，呵呵]. The arguer simply assumes that they should take advantage of this work-at-home trend by increasing at all Valu-Mart stores the stock of home office machines, but does not provide any evidence to substantiate this is the case. It is true that the increasing of the home office machines will be improved by the rise of work-at-home trend, but the arguer must show that trend is exactly happened. Otherwise, base on this slim information, we can never evaluate the arguer's conclusion. [很奇怪，我感觉这一段虽然点出了问题所在，但却并没有进行具体和实质上的攻击，因为前三句话基本是一个意思，就是作者的假设占不住脚（即trend不成立）。我认为该段可以这样改一下：
To begin with, the premise of the conclusion is weak. It is true that the increasing of the home office machines can be improved by the rise of work-at-home trend, but the arguer fails to prove this trend. ]

Second[ly], the most egregious reasoning error is the fallacy of hasty generalization [如果你认为这是本文最大的错误所在的话，我觉得把这一条放在最前面点出来为好。]. The arguer groundlessly assumes that the more people required to take more work home, which must bears some contribution to taking advantage of the home office machines and make the office-supply departments become the most profitable component of their stores [这句话有语病，assume后面的从句不完整，缺谓语。按照原意，我觉得可以进行如下改写: The arguer groundlessly assumes that if more people are required to continue working at home, they will definitely contribute to the sale of those office supplies.]. It is highly possible that does not reveal about such conclusion [什么意思？不太明白]. For instance, do that people must work at home and need those home office machines? [用陈述句比较好] Another possibility is they also could [can also] do their uncompleted task in the office [题目中已经说清楚他们是回家做，所以这个理由不成立]. In addition, is there anyone else of stores that sell home office machines except of Valu-Mart? [陈述句] Maybe there are other stores also sell such home office machines in a cheaper price that Valu-Mart stores does not know about [可改为It is quite possible that there exist other stores that sell these stuffs at a cheaper price.]. What's more, even if the home office machines are increased sold out [the HMs sell better], which [it] does not mean the office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of Valu-Mart store [before taking the detail information of other departments into account]. The arguer should consider the sell instances of other departments [与前句合并了]. Without ruling out these and other possible factors, the arguer can not confidently conclude the unconvincing analysis [这句话总结得很漂亮].

In addition, it is fallacious to draw any conclusion on the basis of such limited evidence[这句是模板里面的么？没有与题目具体内容相关的实质信息在里面啊？比方说改为In addition, it is fallacious to draw any conclusion on the basis of the questionable survey, which is too vague to support the idea]. The survey results as reported by the arguer are too vague to support any firm conclusion: over 70 percent of the respondents required to take more work home [与前句合并]. The arguer fails to provide assurances that these respondents are representative of the overall population of people who [are] required taking [to take] more work home. [这里应该加为什么fail？给些具体的例子做支撑比较好，比方说调查的都是某个公司的职员，而该公司又正好处于很繁忙的阶段。]Additionally, we are not informed how many people were surveyed but did not respond. Thus, as it stands the survey lends to credible support to the arguer’s conclusion. [这句不太对吧？] [另外，这段话也是攻击trend不成立的，如此一来不就和第一段重复了么？]

As it stands, the statement is neither sound nor persuasive. To make it logically acceptable, before any final decisions are made by the Valu-Mart, the arguer should judge of all possible alternatives. [如下改写一下可能会更符合英文语言习惯：To make it logically acceptable, the arguer should judge of all possible alternatives before any final decisions are made.]


[第一感觉是在30分钟下写出这个篇幅的文章已经很厉害了，但觉得本文的实质内容却并不多，只重点攻击了两个方面，其实你可以把第二段的后面拿出来单独成段，“即使办公用品销量上去，也不代表利润就最高”。如此一来，该文就有三个独立的攻击点了：
1.        survey不足信，不能证明trend成立；
2.        trend成立也不代表销量就高；
3.        办公用品销量高也不代表该部门就最牛。
至于各个攻击点的阐述顺序，我个人觉得是把最关键的问题放在第一段就讲出来，这样可以给reader一个比较好的印象，也表明你有抓住重点的能力。对于本题而言，攻击点3放在最后是肯定的，但是前两个的顺序关系我拿不太准，在我自己的文章中是2放前，1放后，因为我觉得逻辑错误比调查本身是否可信的错误更为严重；但另外一种理解是先攻击前提，就像你做的一样，呵呵。这个问题我只是提出来而已，具体如何做还有待研究哈。

从逻辑和内容上来讲，我猜测你大概是因为要限时，所以在真正把各个关系理清楚之前就动笔了，使得整个文章结构并不清晰。关于这一点，我觉得ARGUMENT绝对是体现思维能力的一个测试，所以一定要想清楚再下笔，不要怕写不完而仓促上阵，这样反而适得其反。

从语言上讲，首先要明确的一点就是，如果非必要，千万不要用问句！这种文章不是两个人面对面的争执，质问的语气不能加强你攻击的力度，相反确有负面的作用。另外，可以看出里面有些句子是固定模板里面的，在使用这些句子的时候一定要注意与上下文的衔接。

嗯，写得罗嗦了些，你批判地看吧，嘿嘿~~]

shalonbasUID: 2184474

[看了看你的提纲，又有些小想法，还是那句话，批判地看哈，欢迎argue，呵呵。]

ARGUMENT117
1.        论断：VM的办公用品部门会成为最盈利的部门。因为V-M应该利用回家办公人数增多的趋势，增加他们家庭办公用品的供应和库存，又因为一个调查超过70%的回应者反应他们被要求回家完成的工作量比以前多。

2.        前提不成立。家庭办公用品的盈利的前提是利用回家办公人数增多的趋势，没有证据表明回家办公人数真的增多了[意图攻击trend，可如何攻击该trend呢？应该从survey着手吧，如此一来实际上就和你的第三点重复了。而你为了不和第三点重复就得把同一个意思在全文中重复说了好几遍却没有实质内容，导致攻击无力]。被要求回家完成的工作量比以前多，不代表工作就一定会在家完成[这一条在你文章中没有，而且，说实话，我觉得如果要这么说就有些钻牛角尖了，呵呵]。

3.        论断草率。被要求回家完成的工作量比以前多，意味着一定会回家完成吗？[和你提纲中的上一条重复了吧]可能在办公室加班完再回家[题目中说了是回家继续工作吧]。即使回家完成，一定要用家庭办公用品吗？有的职业可能不需要。有人也许不会花钱买。即使一定要用家庭办公用品，非要去V-M购买吗？也许周围有更便宜的供应商。[这些确实很有道理，应该重点说。]

4.        论据不充分。首先调查的人群可能不具备全体人群代表性，其次不知道调查了没回应者的态度。调查模糊，无说服力。[见上，应该和第一点并列。]

5.        结论：作者应该考虑更多的情况，更确切的调查，以及增加盈利的办法。