argument4 G89互助社 9日同主题写作

vico8478UID: 2120997

Argument4  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7秒     438 words
从2005年7月9日9时48分到2005年7月9日10时30分
------题目------
The following was posted on an Internet real estate discussion site.
'Of the two leading real estate firms in our town—Adams Realty and Fitch Realty—Adams is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents. In contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover, Adams' revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch, and included home sales that averaged $168,000, compared to Fitch's $144,000. Homes listed with Adams sell faster as well: ten years ago, I listed my home with Fitch and it took more than four months to sell; last year, when I sold another home, I listed it with Adams, and it took only one month. Thus, if you want to sell your home quickly and at a good price, you should use Adams.'
------正文------
In this argument, the arguer claims that Adams (A) is superior to Fitch (F) in selling houses. To bolster his claim, the arguer compares these two companies from several aspects and cites some data. In my point of view, this argument suffers from several logical flaws.

The threshold problem of the argument is that the arguer indicates that A has more real estate agents than F. the arguer unfairly assumes that more real estate agents means stronger capacity of selling houses. However, the arguer provides no evidence to substantiate this assumption. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that agents in F are more excellent than the ones in A and the efficiency of these 25 agents is higher than that of 40 agents in A. Thus without considering the working capacity of each agent of these two companies, the arguer cannot convince me that A is better than F.

Secondly, the arguer falsely equates revenue with the profits of the two. He indicates that the revenue of A is higher than F. However, the capacity of a company is not only correlated with the revenue, but also with the costs. Even if the revenue of A is higher than F, it is possible that A's revenue cannot setoff the costs during last year.
Without pointing out the costs of two companies, I remain unconvinced.

Furthermore, the author cites a group of data of the average price of the home sold by each company. However, average price doesn't equate to the whole revenue. Perhaps F sell much more homes than A, thus the whole revenue of F is higher than A.

Moreover, the argument commits a fallacy of false analogy because the arguer indicates that it took F more than four months to sell a home ten years ago while it took only one month for A to sell another home last year. However, things rarely remain the same over extended period of time due to the different conditions existing between these two periods of times. Perhaps selling homes ten years ago was very difficult, while last year homes became hot. Besides, the arguer fails to provide any evidence to describe the conditions of these two homes. Perhaps these two homes vary a lot in many aspects and this is the cause that F's home is difficult to sell.

In conclusion, though the argument seems to be plausible, it is neither sound nor persuasive. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should provide more evidence to substantiate the fact that A is better in selling homes than F. If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would be more thorough and adequate.

polymathUID: 179557

帮你顶!今天没有顾的！:)