Argument179 [5f第二次作业]让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！

shuwenyingUID: 2233183

Argument179让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
687 words 请问有没有办法修正这个问题：粘贴后，某些空格自动消失了。
------题目------
The following is a memorandum written bythe director of personnel to the president of the Cedar Corporation.
'It would be a mistake to rehire theGood-Taste Company to supply the food in our employee cafeteria next year. Itis the second most expensive caterer in the city. In addition, its prices haverisen in each of the last three years, and it refuses to provide meals for peopleon special diets. Just last month three employees complained to me that they nolonger eat in the cafeteria because they find the experience 'unbearable.' Ourcompany should instead hire Discount Foods. Discount is a family-owned localcompany and it offers a varied menu of fish and poultry. I recently tasted asample lunch at one of the many companies that Discount serves and it wasdelicious—an indication that hiring Discount will lead to improved employeesatisfaction.'
------正文------
In this memorandum, the director claimsthat rehiring the Good-Taste Company (G) would be a mistake by citing thereasons including expensiveness of G's food, rising prices, its refusal toprovide special meals and complaining from three employees. Moreover, judgingfrom one sample lunch he has tasted, he continues to recommend the DiscountFoods (D) instead, so as to raise employee satisfaction. Unfortunately, througha review of the reasoning, I cast doubt on the validity of the recommendation.

To begin with, it sounds highly doubtful tome that rehiring G is a grave mistake for the director has committed severalflaws in his discourse. For one thing, the fact that G is the second mostexpensive caterer in the city seems insufficient to prove G is inferior becausethe price relies on the quality of the food, the costs of the raw material andthe payment of the processors such as the chef. Solely concerning on theexpenses without referring to other significant aspects could by no meansconvince me that hiring G is an unwise decision. For another, no evidenceindicates that employees in the company require special diets thus it may beunnecessary to provide special meals. Moreover, it is unwarranted to questionthe taste of the food or the service of G according to the complaining fromthree employees. Entirely possible is that these three customers tend to findfault with the service or food of every restaurant they patronize while theoverwhelming majority of the employees of the company satisfy the flavor andservice. Or maybe the taste happens to mismatch the specific fondness of thethree employees. In a word, unless the director manage to justify the qualityof the service as a whole, the necessity of special meals, the unsavory taste andthe poor service, I express reservations on the correctness of the decision torehire G.

In addition, the director fails to justifythat D is a superior choice instead. First and foremost, the director hasneglected the comparison on the price of the food between G and D. As has beenpointed out in the memorandum, G is the second most expensive caterer in thecity; it is highly possible that D happens to be the most expensive one. Forthat matter, D might be even less suitable for the Cedar Corporation than G.Besides, even if the family-owned local company, D, charges lower than G, otherrelevant conditions including the quality of service and santination duringprocessing raw material, have been left out of consideration. Next, the diversemenu of fish and poultry provided by D may fail to reach the requirement of theemployees who might order special diet. Because the author has rejected G as itrefuses to provide special diet, D could be denied for the same reason forlacking information about its willingness to prepare the special diet. Finally,the only one sample lunch the author has tasted in one specific company of theseries could hardly demonstrate the taste of the food prepared by D as a whole.It is equally possible that the food is inhomogeneous among different companiesand the one to be hired by Cedar Corporation services insipid diet. And thesatisfaction of the director could hardly represent the attitude of otheremployees.

Last but not least, the director predictsthat hiring Discount will result in raised employee satisfaction, which isunsounded to me. As common sense informs me, job satisfaction contains aremarkably wide range of contents while the food supplied by the company seemsto be manor compared with other aspect such as payment, promotionopportunities, working atmosphere, welfare and length of vocation, and so on.

In sum, the conclusion of the memorandumthat rehiring the Good-Taste Company and picking Discount Foods is logicallyflawed and the reasoning sounds unpersuasive to me. At a minimum, furtherinvestigation and comparison on the price, quality of the food, service andtaste of the diet between the two food companies should be provided. And theattitude of the employees should be clarified before the author could convinceme.

[ 本帖最后由 shuwenying 于 2007-11-7 15:26 编辑 ]

picassoniUID: 2375380

没什么毛病:handshake