Argument179 食品供应商 诚征板砖

归来的虎子UID: 181060

Argument179  第5篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：30分3秒     498 words
从2005年7月2日12时52分到2005年7月2日13时30分
------题目------
The following is a memorandum written by the director of personnel to the president of the Cedar Corporation.
'It would be a mistake to rehire the Good-Taste Company to supply the food in our employee cafeteria next year. It is the second most expensive caterer in the city. In addition, its prices have risen in each of the last three years, and it refuses to provide meals for people on special diets. Just last month three employees complained to me that they no longer eat in the cafeteria because they find the experience 'unbearable.' Our company should instead hire Discount Foods. Discount is a family-owned local company and it offers a varied menu of fish and poultry. I recently tasted a sample lunch at one of the many companies that Discount serves and it was delicious—an indication that hiring Discount will lead to improved employee satisfaction.'
------正文------
In this analysis, the arguer recommends that the company should instead hires Discount Foods instead of Good-Taste Company . To justify his recommendation, the arguer points out that Good-Taste  is the second most expensive caterer in the city. In addition, its prices have risen in each of the last three years, and it refuses to provide meals for people on special diets. He also reasoned that  Discount Foods, a family-owned local company, offers a varied menu of fish and poultry and a  sample lunch  the he himself recently tasted at one of the many companies that Discount serves was delicious. The recommendation seems at first glance to be an obvious one, however, a careful examination will enable us to find out that the argument suffers from several critical fallacies, and therefore unpersuasive.

To begin with, the arguer unfairly assumes that  Good-Taste Company no longer satisfy the employees of the corporation. However, this is not necessarily the case. The rising price of the Good-Taste might due to fluctuation of the dietetic economy. And, its high price may be reasonable because of its high quality of food and service, or its good reputation in the city. Moreover, the arguer fails to provide any evidence that the refusion (being not able ) to provide meals for people on special diets would cause to dissatisfaction of the employees working in the corporation.
It is entirely possible that there is no person in the corporation who needs special diets and thus the Good-Taste has no reason to provide them.

In addition, although the arguer points out that last month three employees have complained about Good-Taste, these single evidence is insufficient to generally evaluate the overall satisfaction of the employees about the company. It is likely that these three people happen to be on special diets which makes them not typical of the overall attitude of the employees of the corporation.

Another problems that undermines the argument is that the arguer fails to convince me that all the employees will be more satisfied with Discount Foods. Maybe most of them do not like the monotone menu of fish and poultry it offers. Although it is maybe true that the meals the arguer has tasted in  the Discount Foods is indeed delicious, this single sample  can not representative the overall quality and service of the company the arguer recommends. The arguer provides no evidence to assure that hiring Discount will lead to improved employee satisfaction, therefore I can not agree with the arguer's sweeping conclusion.

To sum up, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands, the evidence cited in the argument does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument the arguer would have to provide more facts to warrant his conclusion that the employees are no longer satisfied with the Good-Taste company. And to better assess the argument I need more information concerning the necessity about hiring Discount will lead to improved employee satisfaction.

staralwaysUID: 193479

In this analysis, the arguer recommends that the company should instead [多余，去掉。] hires Discount Foods instead of Good-Taste Company. To justify his recommendation, the arguer points out that Good-Taste  is the second most expensive caterer in the city. In addition, its prices have risen in each of the last three years, and it refuses to provide meals for people on special diets. He also reasoned that Discount Foods, a family-owned local company, offers a varied menu of fish and poultry and a sample lunch that he himself recently tasted at one of the many companies that Discount serves was delicious. The recommendation seems at first glance to be an obvious one, however, a careful examination will enable us to find out that the argument suffers from several critical fallacies, and therefore unpersuasive. [开头还是显得冗长，中间对于题目的复述可以概括一下。]

To begin with, the arguer unfairly assumes that Good-Taste Company no longer satisfy the employees of the corporation. However, this is not necessarily the case. The rising price of the Good-Taste might due to fluctuation of the dietetic economy. And, its high price may be reasonable because of its high quality of food and service, or its good reputation in the city. Moreover, the arguer fails to provide any evidence that the refusal (being not able) to provide meals for people on special diets would cause to dissatisfaction of the employees working in the corporation. It is entirely possible that there is no person in the corporation who needs special diets and thus the Good-Taste has no reason to provide them.

In addition, although the arguer points out that last month three employees have complained about Good-Taste, this single evidence is insufficient to generally evaluate the overall satisfaction of the employees about the company. It is likely that these three people happen to be on special diets which makes them not typical of the overall attitude of the employees of the corporation. [这段对于“三名员工无法反映总体情况”的攻击，还可以再深入一点。]
Another problems that undermines the argument is that the arguer fails to convince me that all the employees will be more satisfied with Discount Foods. Maybe most of them do not like the monotone menu of fish and poultry it offers. Although it is maybe true [it might be true] that the meals the arguer has tasted in the Discount Foods is indeed delicious, this single sample  cannot representative the overall quality and service of the company the arguer recommends. [是不是考虑紧接着论述一下有哪些可能性可以证明“通过这一份样本无法知道是否能满足所有人的口味”？] The arguer provides no evidence to assure that hiring Discount will lead to improved employee satisfaction, therefore I cannot agree with the arguer's sweeping conclusion.

To sum up, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands, the evidence cited in the argument does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument the arguer would have to provide more facts to warrant his conclusion that the employees are no longer satisfied with the Good-Taste company. And to better assess the argument I need more information concerning the necessity about hiring Discount will lead to improved employee satisfaction. [结尾中规中矩。]