argument117【0806G-Sunbird小组】第二次作业

demonXhunterUID: 2420492

题目：ARGUMENT117 - The 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."
提纲：
1. 在所有商店增加这种产品显然提高了支出。没有给出明确的解决办法，很难相信利润会提高。
2. 统计对象不清晰。也许大部分统计对象的确比过去在家工作多，但是他们可能根本就用不到这些机器。
3. manager新的商业策略存在一些问题。为了节约开支，不应该在所有的商店都提供这些商品。

The arguer recommends that Valu-Mart's office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of its all stores thought increasing the stock of home office machines such as printers, small copy machines, paper shredders, and fax machines, and increase stock of office supplies such as paper, pens, and staplers. To support this recommendation the arguer cites a recent survey in which over 70 percent of the respondents are required to take more work home than they were. However, the argument is problematic in several respects.

First, the arguer predicts that office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of Valu-Mart stores by increasing the stock of home office machines and stock of office supplies at all Valu-Mart stores. It is obviously not the case. After all, increasing so many kinds of products in all Valu-Mart stores is absolutely an expensive cost. Absent of any explanation of how the profit of office-supply departments boost with such a large outgo, I simply cannot accept the manager’s prediction.

Secondly, the arguer provides no assurances that the survey on which the argument depends is statistically reliable. Unless the survey's respondents are representative of the overall population of workers who works with office machines, the arguer cannot rely on it to predict the success of Valu-Mart's new distribution strategy. Perhaps and even probably, a significant percentage of the respondents who are in the “work-at-home trend” do not usually use these office machines. For that matter, even most people work more at home than they did before, they should not buy Valu-Mart’s stock of home office machines and stock of office supplies because they hardly use them. The survey is helpless to this argument.

Thirdly, the manager relies on the assumption that the depressed sales of Valu-Mart is attributable to a problem that his new distribution strategy will solve. Yet it is entirely possible that the decline was due to factors such as imprudent pricing or poor product quality. Moreover, the new strategy is problematic as it stands. To save the cost, the new strategy should only be put into execution at some of Valu-Mart stores that office machines bought frequently, and whether stock of office supplies should be increased needs further consideration.

In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the manager must provide more evidence that his new strategy will save the outgo of office-supply departments or boost the sales of those products. Also the survey needs more details about the respondents to show their tendency to stock of home office machines. The more details provided, the more reasonable it is.

[ 本帖最后由 demonXhunter 于 2007-11-10 13:29 编辑 ]

norman518UID: 188582

The arguer recommends that Valu-Mart's office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of its all stores thought【through】 increasing the stock of home office machines such as printers, small copy machines, paper shredders, and fax machines, and increase stock of office supplies such as paper, pens, and staplers【开头没必要如此详细地复述吧】. To support this recommendation the arguer cites a recent survey in which over 70 percent of the respondents are required to take more work home than they were. However, the argument is problematic in several respects.
【开头段最好简洁点、用自己的归纳代替复述】

First, the arguer predicts that office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of Valu-Mart stores by increasing the stock of home office machines and stock of office supplies at all Valu-Mart stores.【应该是你的TP，但因果关系不明确，导致你的攻击无力】 It is obviously not the case. After all, increasing so many kinds of products in all Valu-Mart stores is absolutely an expensive cost. Absent of any explanation of how the profit of office-supply departments boost with such a large outgo, I simply cannot accept the manager’s prediction.
【B1：应该是你的TP导致你的攻击点不明确，且不够深入】

Secondly, the arguer provides no assurances that the survey on which the argument depends is statistically reliable. Unless the survey's respondents are representative of the overall population of workers who works with office machines, the arguer cannot rely on it to predict the success of Valu-Mart's new distribution strategy. Perhaps and even probably, a significant percentage of the respondents who are in the “work-at-home trend” do not usually use these office machines【话到嘴边了，怎么不继续细化】. For that matter, even most people work more at home than they did before, they should not buy Valu-Mart’s stock of home office machines and stock of office supplies because they hardly use them【在A中列举反例比你说理更有力】.The survey is helpless to this argument.
【B2：攻击survey的可靠性，但没有细化】

Thirdly, the manager relies on the assumption that the depressed sales of Valu-Mart is【复数】 attributable to a problem that his new distribution strategy will solve. Yet it is entirely possible that the decline was due to factors such as imprudent pricing or poor product quality. Moreover, the new strategy is problematic as it stands. To save the cost, the new strategy should only be put into execution at some of Valu-Mart stores that office machines bought frequently, and whether stock of office supplies should be increased needs further consideration.
【B3：攻击销售量不高的其他原因，也没有细化；其实，这点（小前提）和“作者的建议是否有利可图”应该是文章攻击的重点】

In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the manager must provide more evidence that his new strategy will save the outgo of office-supply departments or boost the sales of those products. Also the survey needs more details about the respondents to show their tendency to stock of home office machines. The more details provided, the more reasonable it is.

有机会帮我侃侃：

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=762196&page=1&extra=page%3D1#pid1771069334

[ 本帖最后由 norman518 于 2007-11-13 18:37 编辑 ]

demonXhunterUID: 2420492

嗯 thank you 很有参考价值

edith_sleepingUID: 2368536

The arguer recommends that Valu-Mart's office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of its all stores thought increasing the stock of home office machines such as printers, small copy machines, paper shredders, and fax machines, and increase stock of office supplies such as paper, pens, and staplers。这里可以整理一下 To support this recommendation the arguer cites a recent survey in which over 70 percent of the respondents are required to take more work home than they were. However, the argument is problematic in several respects.

First, the arguer predicts that office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of Valu-Mart stores by increasing the stock of home office machines and stock of office supplies at all Valu-Mart stores. It is obviously not the case. 觉得有点过于绝对，语气可以缓一点After all, increasing so many kinds of products in all Valu-Mart stores is absolutely an expensive cost. Absent of any explanation of how the profit of office-supply departments boost with such a large outgo, I simply cannot accept the manager’s prediction.这里可以进一步分析为什么不是Most profitable component

Secondly, the arguer provides no assurances that the survey on which the argument depends is statistically reliable. Unless the survey's respondents are representative of the overall population of workers who works with office machines, the arguer cannot rely on it to predict the success of Valu-Mart's new distribution strategy. Perhaps and even probably可删去, a significant percentage of the respondents who are in the “work-at-home trend” do not usually use these office machines. For that matter, even most people work more at home than they did before, they should not（need not） buy Valu-Mart’s stock of（去掉，这里是采购的意思）home office machines and stock of office supplies because they hardly use them. The survey is helpless to this argument.

Thirdly, the manager relies on the assumption that the depressed sales of Valu-Mart is attributable to a problem that his new distribution strategy will solve. Yet it is entirely possible that the decline was due to factors such as imprudent pricing or poor product quality. Moreover, the new strategy is problematic as it stands. To save the cost, the new strategy should only be put into execution at some of Valu-Mart stores that office machines bought frequently, and whether or not stock of office supplies should be increased needs further consideration.

In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the manager must provide more evidence(s) that his new strategy will save the outgo of office-supply departments or boost the sales of those products. Also the survey needs more details about the respondents to show their tendency to stock of(去掉) home office machines. The more details provided, the more reasonable it is.结尾其实是总结上文的缺陷，并就缺陷提出建议。但是你的结尾段好像针对性不强

以上仅为个人意见 说的不对之处指出可讨论
欢迎回拍https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=764847&page=1&extra=page%3D1#pid1771089459


[ 本帖最后由 edith_sleeping 于 2007-11-17 02:31 编辑 ]

demonXhunterUID: 2420492

thank you all