argument179 by kici 530字 最后一周

kiciUID: 169506

TOPIC: ARGUMENT179 - The following is a memorandum written by the director of personnel to the president of the Cedar Corporation.

"It would be a mistake to rehire the Good-Taste Company to supply the food in our employee cafeteria next year. It is the second most expensive caterer in the city. In addition, its prices have risen in each of the last three years, and it refuses to provide meals for people on special diets. Just last month three employees complained to me that they no longer eat in the cafeteria because they find the experience 'unbearable.' Our company should instead hire Discount Foods. Discount is a family-owned local company and it offers a varied menu of fish and poultry. I recently tasted a sample lunch at one of the many companies that Discount serves and it was delicious-an indication that hiring Discount will lead to improved employee satisfaction."
WORDS: 537          TIME: 00:35:00          DATE: 2007-7-31 17:21:09

In this article, the author concludes that Cedar Corporation should hire Discount Foods (DF) instead of Good-Taste Company (GT) to improve employee satisfaction about cafeteria. However, close scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it lends little credible support to the claim.

To begin with, the author fails to convince us that Good-Taste Company is unqualified. The article cites three information to prove this point: high price, refusing to provide special meals, three employees' complaint. However, either of them is convincing as it seems. First, it is possible that the rising price during the last three years is due to some uncontrollable economical factor such as the inflation, raw material price increasing, raising taxes. Also as mentioned that it is the second most expensive cafe in the city, which is the most expensive one? Is it DF? If not, then what is the price difference between these two companies? If it is trivial, not worth to mention, then this mere evidence cannot substantiate the claim that Cedar need to change a cafeteria company.  Second, turning to the special diets thing, it is possible that GT refuses it because it's far beyond its ability such as the raw material is scant, or perhaps the special diets is unhealthy, containing too much fat and sugar, GT reject the request for the reason of concerns with employees' health. Then switching to complain, there is possibility that only these three employees are unsatisfied with the food. Changing a cafe company for only three persons is not worthwhile, comparing the financial cost and benefit.

What is more, even if GT is unqualified cafe and should be replaced by another company, the author also fails to prove that the DF is a nice choice by citing the evidence: varied menu, one sample tasted by the author. For the former point, the varied menu still cannot indicate that our employees' taste would be satisfied. A possibility which could not be excluded is that some of our workers might be vegetarians who do not interest in the fish and poultry, which would easily arouse complaint. For the latter evidence, it is possible that the director of personnel is not representative of the employees' taste. What if the author prefers sweet food, while the majority of others like salty one? What if others cannot eat sugar because of diabetes? Without ruling out these scenarios, the argument is problematic.

Finally, even if the foregoing assumptions are substantiated, still there are other alternative solutions for Cedar. What about hire them both to compete with each other? There is a large chance that the fierce competition would force the price go down, and quality of service go up. If so, the complaint would dwindle and satisfaction could rise. What about other companies who have a more varied menu and lower price? What about giving up the cafeteria and using the money to increase the wage of employees? Let them free to choose?

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To convince us, the author need more information of the GT and DF, such as which is more qualified, which attract more customers. To bolster the argument, we like to know other alternative solutions to remedy the problem.

[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2007-8-1 16:39 编辑 ]

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

In this article, the author concludes that Cedar Corporation should hire Discount Foods (DF) instead of Good-Taste Company (GT) to improve employee satisfaction about cafeteria. However, close scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it lends little credible support to the claim.

To begin with, the author fails to convince us that Good-Taste Company is unqualified. The article cites three information to prove this point: high price, refusing to provide special meals, three employees' complaint. However, either of them is convincing as it seems. First(For the first one, 对应直接点让结构更明确), it is possible that the rising price during the last three years is due to some uncontrollable economical factor such as the inflation, raw material price increasing, raising taxes.(so? it has nothing to do with the bad quality, we may well deduce that such an increasing price was objective and even more possitive, for Good-Taste to improve its diet and service. 把话说完, 让它能支持你的论点, 而不是盲目给一个论据就没了) Also as mentioned that it is the second most expensive cafe in the city, which is the most expensive one? Is it DF? If not, then what is the price difference between these two companies? (这个two指代不明了, 是DF还是实际上的最贵餐厅?)If it is trivial, not worth to mention, then this mere evidence cannot substantiate the claim that Cedar need to change a cafeteria company.(你的结构感很好, 要是能对论据的把握也做到比较强就好了, 现在的感觉给的它因很弱, 表达方式也不太strong, 总是if, it's possible这种其实显得你的立场很没根据的)  Second, turning to the special diets thing, it is possible that GT refuses it because it's far beyond its ability such as the raw material is scant,(这个它因不能证明GT好, 相反在说它能力不足) or perhaps the special diets is unhealthy, containing too much fat and sugar, GT reject the request for the reason of concerns with employees' health.(这两条论据给人的感觉就是没砸到点上, 没错第二条如果成立作者的立论站不住, 但是你没有证明它成立的依据, 也没有直接指出作者的错误, 而是用可能性迂回工作, 这样让你自己的逻辑也显得很弱. 更好的方法是置疑个性化配餐不能代表服务质量, 即使有好处也不能代表这个足以掩盖其它亮点, 然后再举例说配餐的健康性, 经济性, 机会成本等等) Then switching to complain, there is possibility that only these three employees are unsatisfied with the food(and the others?). Changing a cafe company for only three persons is not worthwhile, comparing the financial cost and benefit.(同样问题, 这里何不置疑样本代表性? 都给了样本的如此具体的信息)

What is more, even if GT is unqualified cafe and should be replaced by another company, the author also fails to prove that the DF is a nice choice by citing the evidence: varied menu, one sample tasted by the author. For the former point, the varied menu still cannot indicate that our employees' taste would be satisfied(这个STILL是针对谁说的? 加一句, while if granted Good-Taste...). A possibility which could not be excluded is that some of our workers might be vegetarians who do not interest in the fish and poultry(这个它因举得太细了, 一个公司都是素食者太恐怖了 \||\ 这概率很小的, 直接说每个人品位都不一样, 想全部保证是不可能的, 不如找出最能满足大众的, 质量比数量更重要), which would easily arouse complaint. For the latter evidence, it is possible that the director of personnel is not representative of the employees' taste. What if the author prefers sweet food, while the majority of others like salty one?(同样问题) What if others cannot eat sugar because of diabetes? Without ruling out these scenarios, the argument is problematic.

Finally, even if the foregoing assumptions are substantiated, still there are other alternative solutions for Cedar. What about hire them both to compete with each other? (这点出发点很新颖, 但很冒险, how to prove it would be worthy and feasible? argument是驳论， 你以立作驳等于自己又出了道ARGUMENT, 很难用这么少的字就说清楚 ,特别是没有公司的具体数据的时候)There is a large chance that the fierce competition would force the price go down, and quality of service go up. If so, the complaint would dwindle and satisfaction could rise. What about other companies who have a more varied menu and lower price? What about giving up the cafeteria and using the money to increase the wage of employees? Let them free to choose?(选择其它公司策略, 你会发现让步掉前两段以后已经不可能了, 因为这个逻辑前提的要求和第二段是一样的, 而同时雇佣又要考虑成本因素, 所以这段的攻击虽然很有新意,但力度实在难以令人满意)

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To convince us, the author need more information of the GT and DF, such as which is more qualified, which attract more customers. To bolster the argument, we like to know other alternative solutions to remedy the problem.

总评: LZ用了个很有意思的套路,  没有把三个论据比较来说而是从两个方面出发, 这样没什么问题, 但造成最后一段的攻击点不足, 所以建议批驳完三个论据时不要把话说绝, 只说"能证明哪方有优势哪方有劣势", 而"该选谁不该选谁" ,这样为第三个攻击点的逻辑前提留出空间, 指出三个论据之外的错误, 这样论证的结构能改善很多.