argument4 【kito作业】

kito9695UID: 209685

第二十一次作业
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝Argument＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
【题目】
Argument4（2005年2-9月总频20次）
4.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."

【翻译】在本市的两家最大的房地产经纪公司--Adams Realty和Fitch
Realty--之中，Adams显然更优秀一些。Adams有40名房地产经纪人，而Fitch只有25个，且很多是兼职工作。而且，Adams去年的收入是Fitch的两倍，其平均房价为$168000，而Fitch仅为$144000。在Adams销售的房屋卖得也更快：十年前，我把我的房产交给Fitch，它用了四个多月才卖出去；去年，我在Adams卖了另一处房产，仅用一个月就售出了。因此，要想让你的房产卖的更快更好，你应该选择Adams。
【提纲】
1、agents的多少和是否全职工作不能表明房地产经济公司的好坏（A的40个也许是不必要的，没有那么多客户；而且要看agents的工作能力和效率）
2、收入虽然是两倍，但还要考虑成本，虽然A的收入多，也许除去投入净利润反而低于F；而且只提到去年的收入多，以前呢，以后呢
3、A的平均房价高于F并不能表明A比F好，可能是房屋本身的差异造成的，也许在F出售的多为一些低价房和更小、更旧的房屋
4、卖房时间的对比没有意义，作者没有考虑十年间房地产市场发生的变化，十年前在F卖房需要4个多月，在去年可能连一个月也不到比A还少
【正文】（528words）
The arguer, basing on his own twice home-selling experiences and a comparison between Adams and Fitch, unfairly asserts that Adams is a better choice for home selling. However, a careful scrutiny reveals its illogical points, as follow.

To begin with, the evidence that Adams has 40 real estate agents while Fitch only has 25, many of whom work only part-time, does not convince us that Adams is superior to Fitch. Firstly, no evidence is provided indicating that 25 agents are not enough for Fitch. It is highly possible that the consumers of real estate are limited, and 40 agents in Adams is a waste with some of them leaving unused; Secondly, the arguer infers in haste that the agents with part-time jobs are worse than the ones with full-time jobs. However, this assumption is groundless. For example, perhaps some of the agents with part-time jobs may be university students with more passion and energy which will benefit to their jobs in stead; or perhaps the worry for losing part-time jobs may enhance them devote more effort to work. On the contrary, the full-time agents with little pressure are more likely to be lazy.

Next, the arguer fails to considerate the cost of the two real estate firms and wrongly equates revenue to profit. If the cost of Adams is much higher than Fitch’s, even if the revenue is twice, the net profit of Adams will turn out to be less than Fitch’s. Unless the profits made by Adams are always higher than by Fitch in the past and in the future, we could not hastily affirm that Adams is superior to Fitch. Also, there is no information about the revenue or profit in other years except last year mentioned in the argument. Without these data, we could not believe Adams is really more profitable.

In addition, the evidence that home sales in Adams that averaged $168,000 last year, compared to Fitch's $144,000 does not indicates that Adams is superior than Fitch. We can’t rule out the possibility that homes sold in Fitch are just much smaller or older than homes sold in Adams and thus worth less money. Besides, it is just the situation last year. What about

Last but not least, the arguer unfairly quotes his or her own experience to illustrate Adams is superior concerning the possible change in real estate market after ten years. Though it took the arguer, listing his or her home with Fitch ten years ago, more than four months to sell, compared with only one month when listing home with Adams last year, the situations are quite different. As it is possible that the real estate is becoming more and more popular with constantly increasing in buyers, selling quicker and the price being higher, which means if the home sold last year listed in Fitch, it would have also sold more quickly and at a good price. Thus, any possibilities talked above, if true, will make the evidence lend little support to the argument.

In sum, the argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. To make it logically accepted, the arguer should base the comparison quoted above on the same situation.

谢谢拍~~这篇句式写得很单调，不知道为啥句子写得很费劲儿，似乎错误都是一个批法儿

bunnymz2005UID: 2146758

【提纲】
1、agents的多少和是否全职工作不能表明房地产经济公司的好坏（A的40个也许是不必要的，没有那么多客户；而且要看agents的工作能力和效率）
2、收入虽然是两倍，但还要考虑成本，虽然A的收入多，也许除去投入净利润反而低于F；而且只提到去年的收入多，以前呢，以后呢 （豁然开朗，呵呵！）
3、A的平均房价高于F并不能表明A比F好，可能是房屋本身的差异造成的，也许在F出售的多为一些低价房和更小、更旧的房屋
4、卖房时间的对比没有意义，作者没有考虑十年间房地产市场发生的变化，十年前在F卖房需要4个多月，在去年可能连一个月也不到比A还少
【正文】（528words）
The arguer, basing on his own twice home-selling experiences and a comparison between Adams and Fitch, unfairly asserts that Adams is a better choice for home selling. However, a careful scrutiny reveals its illogical points, as follow.

To begin with, the evidence that Adams has 40 real estate agents while Fitch only has 25, many of whom work only part-time, does not convince us that Adams is superior to Fitch. Firstly, no evidence is provided indicating that 25 agents are not enough for Fitch. It is highly possible that the consumers of real estate are limited, and 40 agents in Adams is a waste with some of them leaving unused（idle）; Secondly, the arguer infers in haste that the agents with part-time jobs are worse than the ones with full-time jobs. However, this assumption is groundless. For example, perhaps some of the agents with part-time jobs may be university students with more passion and energy which will benefit to their jobs in stead（好，举例具体）; or perhaps the worry for losing part-time jobs may enhance them devote more effort to work（这一点似乎不大合理，为什么part-time就担心呢？full-time并不等于永久的工作啊）. On the contrary, the full-time agents with little pressure are more likely to be lazy.

Next, the arguer fails to considerate the cost of the two real estate firms and wrongly equates revenue to profit. If the cost of Adams is much higher than Fitch’s, even if the revenue is twice, the net profit of Adams will turn out to be less than Fitch’s. Unless the profits made by Adams are always higher than by Fitch in the past and in the future, we could not hastily affirm that Adams is superior to Fitch. Also, there is no information about the revenue or profit in other years except last year mentioned in the argument. Without these data, we could not believe Adams is really more profitable.（这段写得很好，简洁明了，学习ing）

In addition, the evidence that home sales in Adams that averaged $168,000 last year, compared to Fitch's $144,000 does not indicates that Adams is superior than Fitch(,either). We can’t rule out the possibility that homes sold in Fitch are just much smaller or older than homes sold in Adams and thus worth less money. Besides, it is just the situation last year. What about （嗯？怎么没写完？）
Last but not least, the arguer unfairly quotes his or her own experience to illustrate Adams is superior concerning the possible change in real estate market after ten years.（这句话没读通, concerning 后边的话是什么意思呢？）  Though it took the arguer, listing his or her home with Fitch ten years ago, more than four months to sell（the house）, compared with only one month when listing home with Adams last year, the situations are quite different. （这句话过长，并且表意不明，建议拆开写），As it is possible that the real estate is becoming more and more popular with constantly increasing in buyers, selling quicker and the price being higher, which means if the home sold last year listed in Fitch, it would have also sold more quickly and at a good price. Thus, any possibilities talked above, if true, will make the evidence lend little support to the argument. （这段我是这样想的：10年前他仅给了Fitch的数据，却没有给Adams的 去年仅给了Adams的却没有fitch的。那么很可能10年前同样的房子在Adams需要8个月，而去年在Fitch仅需半个月。）这段逻辑有点儿乱~~~
In sum, the argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. To make it logically accepted, the arguer should base the comparison quoted above on the same situation.

限时能写到这样真是佩服，尤其是body2，写得真的很不错。
但是逻辑上还应该注意，尤其是body4，另外，之后要把作文补全哦~~~
加油，呵呵。