Argument179 [5f] 球拍

fuq_flyUID: 2422554

继续雇佣Good-Taste公司在明年为我们员工餐厅提供饮食将是一个错误。它是本市价格第二贵的餐饮服务商。而且，其价格在过去三年中持续上涨，并且它拒绝为那些有特殊饮食要求的人提供服务。上个月有三名员工向我投诉说他们再也不会在员工餐厅用餐了，因为他们发现那种经历"无法忍受"。我们公司应该雇佣Discount Foods。Discount是一个本地的家族企业，它提供鱼类和禽类的多种菜单。我最近在由Discount提供服务的公司之一品尝了一份样品，味道很好，这说明雇佣Discount将会带来更高的员工满意度。


The memo recommends that Cedar Corporation should not rehire Good-Taste company to supply the food in employee cafeteria next year, while hire Discount Foods company instead. To support this recommendation the memo points out that the Good-Taste company is the second most expensive caterer and its prices have risen in each of the last three years. Moreover, it refuses to provide meals for people on special diets. Instead, Discount Foods offers a varied menu of fish and poultry, and a sample lunch was tasted good at one of the many companies that Discount serves. However, careful scrutiny of the argument reveals that this evidence fails to support the recommendation.

First of all, the second highest prices and constantly raising of it should not be the reason of replacing the Good-Taste company before there is the strongly evidence that its prices do not deserve its food. Perhaps, in the past three years, the price level was increasing that not only the Good-Taste company but also the other companies raising their prices.

Secondly, the memo point out that the Good-Taste company refuses to provide meals for people on special diets because last month there were three employees complain that they find the lunch experience 'unbearable'. However, as the argument mention, there were only 3 employees who dissatisfied the Good-Taste service. It is entirely necessary to distribute a detailed survey to all of employees on this issue. Or the evidence is unconvincing. Perhaps, the certain three employees required the special food that unluckily the Good-Taste company didn't prepare. Or even the unbearable experience is actually caused by salesperson or employee individual not the lunch itself. Since the memo provides no evidence that the Good-Taste refuse to provide meals for people on special diets, the recommendation of replacing is unfair.

In addition, the memo refers to a local company called Discount Food, which offers a varied menu of fish and poultry. But the memo does not mention whether the Discount Food can offer special meals for certain people as the memo most concern about with the Good-Taste company. Hence, it is unassured that the certain employees will satisfy with the food supplied by Discount Food.
Finally, even if Discount Food can offer special food, the memo provides no proof that the latter company has any advantages that the former doesn't have. A good taste of sample lunch at one of the many companies that Discount Food serves cannot illustrate that the Discount Food company could offer delicious meals for Cedar Corporation. Perhaps, the sample lunch is prepared deliberately, or the flavor is just satisfied with the memo writer but not all of the employees. Hence, before deeply investigate, any conclusion is hasty.
To sum up, the recommendation is not convining at least based on the memo. To strengthen the argument, the writer should provide clear evidence that Good-Taste company is not competent for the lunch supply while Discount Food company is. And further investigate should be distributed on the two cafeteria and employees.

[ 本帖最后由 fuq_fly 于 2007-11-8 15:18 编辑 ]

lestouUID: 2260126

首先感谢FLY兄拍的这么仔细,看来我也要更加认真才行啊.
然后提一下段落间空一行，注意下了，你有时可能忘掉了
还有就是问下公司名可以缩写吗？我不确定，看你好象上次有这个习惯，我在这次习作中也有模仿，确实省时不少
总体感觉好象比上次差点，最后一部分读可能写的教匆忙，是不是卡时间了，呵呵。
这次改了快50分钟了,都可以自己再写一篇了呵呵,还算对的起你的努力吧,ISSUE只好明天了.
The memo recommends that Cedar Corporation should not rehire Good-Taste company to supply the food in employee cafeteria next year, while hire Discount Foods company instead(seems kind of CHINGLISH，my recommendation is ”; instead, D company should be hired”). To support this recommendation the memo points out that the Good-Taste company is the second most expensive caterer and its prices have risen in each of the last three years. Moreover, it refuses to provide meals for people on special diets. Instead(On the contrary can be better), Discount Foods offers a varied menu of fish and poultry, and a sample lunch was tasted good at one of the many companies that Discount serves. However, careful scrutiny of the argument reveals（a careful scrutiny of the argument will reveals） that this evidence fails to support the recommendation.

First of all, the second highest prices and constantly raising of it should not be the reason of replacing the Good-Taste company before there is the strongly evidence that its prices do not deserve its food.(nice, I really appreciate the usage of deserve) Perhaps, in the past three years, the price level was increasing that not only the Good-Taste company but also the other companies raising their prices.

Secondly, the memo point out that the Good-Taste company refuses to provide meals for people on special diets because last month there were three employees complain that they find the lunch experience 'unbearable'. However, as the argument mention (mentioned), there were only 3 employees who dissatisfied the Good-Taste service. It is entirely necessary to distribute a detailed survey to all of employees on this issue.(good usage) Or the evidence is unconvincing. Perhaps, the certain three employees required the special food that unluckily the Good-Taste company didn't prepare. Or even (“perhaps” missing, right?) the unbearable experience is actually caused by salesperson or employee individual not the lunch itself. Since the memo provides no evidence that the Good-Taste refuse to provide meals for people on special diets, the recommendation of replacing is unfair.

In addition, the memo refers to a local company called Discount Food, which offers a varied menu of fish and poultry. But the memo does not mention whether the Discount Food can offer special meals for certain people as the memo most concern about with the Good-Taste company. Hence, it is unassured(unsure) that (add “all”) the certain( certain better abridged) employees will satisfy with the food supplied by Discount Food.
Finally, even if Discount Food can offer special food, the memo provides no proof that the latter company has any advantages that the former doesn't have. A good taste of sample lunch at one of the many companies that Discount Food serves cannot illustrate that the Discount Food company could offer delicious meals for Cedar Corporation. Perhaps, the sample lunch is prepared deliberately, or the flavor is just satisfied with the memo writer but not all of the employees. （赞一个, 确实没想到这个观点）Hence, before deeply investigate, any conclusion is hasty (to make).
To sum up, the recommendation is not convining（convincing） at least(abridged) based on the memo. To strengthen the argument, the writer should provide clear evidence that Good-Taste company is not competent for the lunch supply while Discount Food company is(providing a better service). And further investigate should be distributed on the two cafeteria and employees.

[ 本帖最后由 lestou 于 2007-11-8 21:57 编辑 ]

fuq_flyUID: 2422554

感谢lestou认真修改，真的很仔细很到位～，感觉学了不少东西，thx！