argument117 0510同主题Valu-Mart增加办公用品 有拍必回！！

violayuanUID: 2125310

argument117

【题目】
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."

【翻译】最近一次调查超过70％的回应者报告说他们被要求回家完成的工作量比以前多。由于Valu-Mart在过去并没有发现办公用品部销量的显著上升，我们应该利用这种在家办公的趋势，在所有Valu-Mart商店增加家庭办公机器比如打印机、小型复印机、碎纸机和传真机的存货。我们也将增加办公用品比如纸笔和钉书机的存货。通过这些变革，我们办公用品部将会成为我们商店中盈利最多的部门。

Outline:
1.        the survey lacks credibility.驳论据1：work at home^
A, 70% respondents, what about those non-respondents?
B, details about the respondents: career field, age, gender, etc.
C, who made the survey, how, error?
(2,3 驳论据2)
2,    even if work at home^
hasty assumption: work at home^ = demand for office supply^
3，   no causal relationship between storage^ & profit^
A, amount needed in the market
B, other factors determine profit: quality, cost, price, and competitors
C, other departments also strive to make more money ó most profitable department

正文：
    In the statement, the arguer recommends that by increasing at all Valu-Mart stores the stock of home office machines and office supplies, the office-supply departments will become the most profitable component in Valu-Mart sotres. To substantiate this recommendation, the arguer cited the result of a survey of which over 70 percent of the respondents are required to take more work home with them from the workplace than they were in the past. Additionally, the arguer pointed out that since Valu-Mart has not seen impressive sales in its office-supply departments in the past, they should take advantage of this work-at-home trend and can therefore make large amount of profits. However, the conclusion is problematic in several critical fallacies.
    To begin with, the result of the survey lends little credibility in substantiating the arguer’s assumption that there is a growing demand for office-supply. A series of question must be taken into consideration: who made this survey? Through what approach did they make it? Did they take any effort to reduce the possible errors and how? Yet the most controversial problem is----are these respondents representative? On the one hand, the arguer fails to provide the details about the proportion of the respondents and those non-respondents respectively. If the amount of respondents consists only 25% of the informants or even lower, then the survey itself is abortive with little referential value. On the other hand, a number of important details in assuring the universality of the informants are absent, for example, their career field, arrange of age, gender, attitude and so on. If the majority of these respondents are exclusively office workers, then they cannot represent the general trend of the society as a whole. For the reasons above, the result of the survey is open to doubt hence is not solid in supporting the arguer’s statement.
To follow, admitting the need for working at home is on the rise, it is too hasty for the arguer to make an assumption that there is a growing demand for office-supply. No evidence regarding the certain amount of each kind of office-equipments in need is provided. Also, there is no guarantee that all the people’s work at home is relevant to office work. Furthermore, it may be that those who work at home already have a set of office equipments and don’t have to buy more. Or even so, they don’t have to stick to Valu-Mart since there is plenty of choice in the market.
    In addition, the arguer fails to build up a causal relationship between the increasing stock of office-supply and more profit, let alone the office-supply department becoming the most profitable component in Valu-Mart. In spite of the factual need of the market, whether the office-supply is profitable is determined by various factors, including the cost of storage, the profit margin as well as the merchandise provided by Valu-Mart in comparing with its competitors in price, quality and diversity of kinds. Meanwhile, other departments within Valu-Mart are endeavoring to make more money besides the office-supply department. Without ruling out these factors mentioned above, the conclusion that the office-supply department is due to be the most profitable component of Valu-Mart is groundless.
    As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To solidify this argument, the arguer would have to present more facts that there is a growing demand for office-supplies indeed. To make it logically acceptable, it would be necessary for the arguer to take into consideration all the above-mentioned factors in determining the profits.
583words

[ Last edited by violayuan on 2005-8-21 at 14:41 ]

夜一UID: 2130338

拍就不敢了，偶也是新手，今天才写第一篇argument，碰巧是这篇
讨论一下吧，如果不对请见谅
首先我认为这个发言者最大的问题是在于把带回家的工作增加等同于家用办公用品的需求会增加，所以我认为这篇argument首先应该从这里入手，把发言者的理论基础推翻
然后在这个基础上，再针对调查提出问题
我认为我们找问题不一定要遵循题目文字上的先后，或许先找出最大的头比较好，毕竟这些argument要反驳起来漏洞百出，怎么说都行

夜一UID: 2130338

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1
这是我今天也刚写的，或许可以交流交流：）
虽然觉得还有很多没有批判到，但是时间总是个大问题，也不可能面面俱到
所以我比较倾向于照重要性的先后来写，写不到的也就算了
比如哪个不知道从哪里冒出来的要增加office supplies，没头没脑的就跳出来了，肯定有问题，我在考虑这个问题的重要性，要不要写，写在哪里比较好

violayuanUID: 2125310

有道理
看来还要大改一下！

夜一UID: 2130338

去过同主题回来
发觉自己想的也有问题
于是又把自己的文章改过了
主要是要突出批驳：通过这些改变，办公用品部门会成为赢利最多的部门
发觉主体结构还是可以用的，于是就只把开头和结尾改掉了