argument22【0906G ANap Hand 作文互改小组】 第八次作业 by irvine666

irvine666UID: 2575525

最近刚好看了一些经济的文章,写起来那是叫一个顺畅阿,结果超时超太多了...

提纲:
1.不应该减少低价楼的建设
2.高价楼不应该造的太多
3.雇佣更多的工人不保证会有高利润.

TOPIC: ARGUMENT22 - The following appeared in a memo from the president of a company that builds and sells new homes in Steel City.
"Over the past five years, the population of Steel City has increased by more than 20 percent, and family incomes in Steel City have risen much faster than the national average. Nationwide, sales of houses priced above $150,000 have increased more than have sales of lower-priced houses. Such data indicate that we should make changes in our business to increase company profits. First, we should build fewer low-priced houses than we did last year and focus instead on building houses designed to sell at above $150,000. Second, we should hire additional workers so that we can build a larger total number of houses than we did last year."
WORDS: 575         TIME: 00:30:00+00:20:00          DATE: 2009/1/11 18:03:43

In this argument, the suggestion, the real estate company should build less buildings which price at below $15000 whereas build more ones priced above $15000, and hire more workers, made by the author, to my understanding, is not cogent as it seems to be.

First and foremost, the nationwide investigation, sales of houses priced above $15000 have increased, by no means the decline of selling in buildings priced below that rate. The author failed to consider the potential market of low price apartments or residences. For most citizens who work in the factories and stores have no considerable payment, obviously, their choices of houses squint towards cheaper ones. Besides, , for there are insufficient background information and uncertain numbers of people surveyed, whether the investigation of Steel City(SC) which demonstrates richer lives of SC's residents points out the reality, is hard to believe in. Furthermore, even if the conclusion of survey, family incomes in the SC have raised much faster than the national average, is authentic, discarding the down-market selling of houses perhaps is a stupid advice instead of earning money from both low-cost segment and high-end market to pad the cushion.

Moreover, the suggestion, building more high-priced houses, is not so rational either. The author failed to consider these questions: how many rich families are there in SC --- not the straightforward conclusion of "increasing", but the exact number, and how many rivals the company competes with? On the one hand, maybe there are few rich people living in SC, and the incomes of most families are far lower than the national average, consequently, even if 100 percent increasing of income is deficient to citizens to afford higher-priced houses. In addition, the economic ambience must be taken into consideration, in the light of a financial crisis would decrease everyone's income. On the other hand, since the company is not a monopolistic one, all its rivals are striving to take up the largest piece of cake with might and main, nobody can therefore ensure the higher-price buildings are "the more the better". Furthermore, the price of house is not decided only by the sell associate, market regulation and macro-economic control are still important elements to determine the building tariff. Thus maybe the apartments or villas at a price above $15000 would depreciate a lot due to the adjustment, so the company has to sell its hens on a rainy day.

Finally, more workers are by no means more profits for three reasons. Firstly, the company should pay more salaries to its employees and the daily cost of regulating and water rate, electric charge will increase, which reinforces the production and operation cost then decline the profits. Secondly, the economic benefits of a house-building company will not show up immediately, a long-term investment must be paid before good harvest, so the peril, capital shortage from either the banks or the stockholders, are lurking in the vaults of the company. Thirdly, even if more houses are built favoringly, who can guarantee that all of them, or at least, most of them are sold out? Hence fixed assets take the place of circulating fund, which is pestilent to a company. So the suggestion, hiring more workers cannot make sense.

As is mentioned above, the author draws a conclusion hastily with insufficient proofs and incorrect hypothesis. In my opinion, instead of a venturesome and imprudent proposal, the best way for a company to advance is progressing steadily and roundly.


[ 本帖最后由 irvine666 于 2009-1-11 19:13 编辑 ]

jenny11235UID: 2585428

1.不应该减少低价楼的建设2.高价楼不应该造的太多3.雇佣更多的工人不保证会有高利润.
In this argument, the suggestion, the real estate company should build less buildings which price at below $15000 whereas build more ones priced above $15000, and hire more workers, （should 后面动词三个并列动词另外几个也应该加should 吧）made by the author, to my understanding, is not cogent as it seems to be.First and foremost, the nationwide investigation, sales of houses priced above $15000 have increased, by no means （看不懂且貌似没谓语整句话）the decline of selling in buildings priced below that rate. The author failed to consider the potential market of low price apartments or residences. For most citizens who work in the factories （无the）and stores have no considerable payment, obviously, their choices of houses squint towards cheaper ones. （可能这部分人占得很少呢？大家都是经商的，大款）Besides, , for there are insufficient background information and uncertain （不能做定语吧）numbers of people surveyed, whether the investigation of Steel City(SC) which demonstrates richer lives of SC's residents points out the reality, is hard to believe in. Furthermore, even if the conclusion of survey, family incomes in the SC have raised much faster than the national average, is authentic, discarding the down-market selling of houses perhaps is a stupid advice instead of earning money from both low-cost segment and high-end market to pad the cushion.Moreover, the suggestion, building more high-priced houses, is not so rational either. The author failed to consider these questions: how many rich families are there in SC --- not the straightforward conclusion of "increasing", but the exact number, and how many rivals the company competes with? On the one hand, （on one hand）maybe there are few rich people living in SC, and the incomes of most families are far lower than the national average, consequently, even if 100 percent increasing of income is deficient to citizens to afford higher-priced houses（consequently前是句号）. In addition, the economic ambience （一般用environment）must be taken into consideration, in the light of （后面跟句子？）a financial crisis would decrease everyone's income. （这个假设真对的是消费者经济情况）On the other hand, since the company is not a monopolistic one, （你怎么知道？）all its rivals are striving to take up the largest piece of cake with might and main（不懂）（这句是第二个问题）, nobody can therefore ensure（ensures）（that）the higher-price buildings are "the more the better". （宾语从句that 不能省）Furthermore, the price of house is not decided only by the sell associate, （句号）market regulation and macro-economic control are still （also）important elements to determine the building tariff（关税？前面一点没和这个联系怎么能是also呢？前面只说price）. Thus maybe the apartments or villas at a price above $15000 would depreciate a lot due to the adjustment, so the company has to sell its hens on a rainy day.（开头提的两个问题应该是主题句，但作者再后面，说了很多与这两个问题不搭的假设，显得很混乱，因为后面很多是说卖高价楼的成本问题，不应该放这段）Finally, more workers are by no means more profits for three reasons.（更多的员工当然不是更多的利益，应该说带来给多利益） Firstly, the company should pay more salaries to its （多余）employees and the daily cost of regulating and water rate, electric charge will increase, which reinforces （前面两个原因所以是复数形式）the production and operation cost then decline the profits. Secondly, the economic benefits of a house-building company will not show up immediately, （句号否则做同位语同位的什么呢？）a long-term investment must be paid before good harvest, so the peril, capital shortage from either the banks or the stockholders, （有关系吗？尤其是stockholders?）are lurking in the vaults of the company.（这是有出处的吧？） Thirdly, even if more houses are built favoringly,（应该是in favor） who can guarantee that all of them, or at least, most of them（逗号） are sold out? Hence （用hence 做连接逻辑不是很好，AS呢？感觉占用流动资金是因后面是果，可以换下句式）fixed assets take the place of circulating fund, which is pestilent to a company. So the suggestion, hiring more workers（逗号） cannot make sense.（make nonsense）
这段不是说员工多的问题吗？感觉尤其第三点根本不是原因啊~还是成本问题风险问题，建议你可以把风险这个因素另开一段As is mentioned above, the author draws a conclusion hastily with insufficient proofs and incorrect hypothesis. In my opinion, instead of a venturesome and imprudent proposal, the best way for a company to advance is progressing steadily and roundly.
第一，建议作者注意下时态，尤其是当引用原文或提到作者看法时应用过去式非现在时，二，俗语太多~不知好不好，貌似老外也没有在一篇500字的文章里狂用吧~感觉native不是体现在这里而是小词的运用，但这需要时间积累


[ 本帖最后由 jenny11235 于 2009-1-14 17:11 编辑 ]