Argument65 [FF小组]第二次作业---by crazy_calm

crazy_calmUID: 2260690

以前没看过argument，下午看了几篇官方加上论坛上的资料，没写提纲直接上了。。。

The argument presented above makes a suggestion that cutting off the storage of imported cheese would improve all the stores' profits. However, expenses reduction is one thing, profits improvement is another. Let alone the evidences that the arguer provides to support the conclusion that domestic cheeses are more favorable by the consumers are logically insufficient.

The arguer first gives out a fact that five best-selling brands in the company's newly opened stores are domestic cheese from Wisconsin. However, he fails to provide more details about the location of the stores and the profits of cheese selling. There is high possibility that all of the new stores are located in Wisconsin or nearby so that the specific cheese from Wisconsin suits the taste of residents there, so it can not stand for the whole sales status throughout the country. Even it does, without the contrast of profits made by imported and domestic cheeses, only sales status can not prove domestic cheese has earned more profits in the consideration of sales for low profits. Maybe imported cheese sells worse than the domestic one but made more profits, it all depends on the product of sales and prices.

Another evidence that the arguer provides is a survey conducted by a cheese related magazine. Although it seemingly tenable, some aspects need further deliberation. First of all, 'an increasing preference' as I quoted from the argument is somehow vague in that we do not know the original situation of respondents' taste. It is possible that only the percentage of people favoring domestic cheese increased while the majority of people still prefer imported cheese. We can not get affirmatory result based on the limited facts the arguer presenting in the argument. However, even if we admit the hypothesis that most of the subscribers of this magazine prefer domestic cheese, little does the arguer prove that those subscribers will buy cheese in their stores. Unless full assessment of the survey's generality and applicability to the chain stores is carried out, there is no necessity between the result of this survey and the profits of the stores.

Beside these two evidences, the arguer also says that limit of inventory will cut the expenses. This claim alone is reasonable yet the indication that profits would improve in this way seems uncertain. As I analyzed above, this adjustment of inventory structure may not increase the total profit or even decrease it. Moreover, this kind of important adjustment requires the company to take lots of relative measures in many fields such as manpower rectification, publicity policies and market operation. All these will contain invisible expenses and eventually offset the reduction made by limiting inventory.

In sum, if the arguer wants to persuade the president of the stores to put his suggestion into practice, he need to provide more directly consumer-related evidences rather than secondary ones he presents in the argument. Moreover, comprehensive and detailed assessment of whether profits will increase by cutting inventory should be added.

[ 本帖最后由 crazy_calm 于 2008-11-7 10:29 编辑 ]