Argument117 『越洋农场第八次作业』写完风雨大作神都吐了。。

alfred0516UID: 2214165

TOPIC: ARGUMENT117 - 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."


写在前面：
昨晚我这一篇正要结尾的时候，窗外忽然电闪雷鸣，接着风雨大作；吾惊呼，唉，连神也吐了啊。。。。
这一篇构思起来倒是挺简单，每一个fallacy也都容易找；只是在论证的连贯性上似乎比较tough，最要命的是语言缺少变化性。。。。。唉。。。。要疯了。。。。。

Outline：
正文1： 调查不具有代表性；没有说明由多少回应者，而且回应者中也只有70％提出要出。
正文2： 错误认为该department从前销售不畅是因为lack of office supplies and machines而引起的。
正文3： 没有从经济学的角度考虑（收益，成本，利润以及市场需求）


正文：
The manager of Valu-Mart store asserts in this memo that the office-supply department will become the most profitable component of their stores by increasing at all Valu-Mart store the stock of home office machines and stock of office supplies. To justify the conclusion, the author point out that 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.  This argument is unpersuasive for several reasons.

First, the survey must be shown to be reliable before I can accept any conclusion based upon it. Specifically, the responses must be accurate, and the respondents must be statistically significant in number of the overall surveyed. However, the arguer fails to supply for us what fraction those respondents take up in the overall survey takers, and what's more, only 70 percent of the respondents put forward the request.  Therefore, without evidence of the survey's reliability, it is impossible to draw any firm conclusion that all the survey takers want to take more work home with them from the workplace.

Secondly, the argument relies on the dubious assumption that it is because the stock of home office machines and office supply in office-supply department is insufficient that the office-supply department has not seen impressive sales. It is entirely possible that the office machines and office supply in Valu-Mart is in bad quality, or that the price of the goods is much higher than that of other stores; and it is also quite possible that because the service in the office-supply department is not as good as that in other store, people prefer to choose a store more expensive but with extremely good service. Without ruling out all this possibilities the arguer cannot reasonably conclude that the sales would increase with the augmentation of stock of office machines and office supplies.

In addition, the arguer concludes too hastily that the office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of their stores. The arguer should have take into account the revenue and cost of the office-supply department, and especially the geographic factors. It is quite possible that soon after they have increased the stock of those goods, the market price would decrease sharply. In that case, they would suffer a gigantic loss. Even the price level maintains, and their revenue increases, they may not attain much profits because they have pay more cost on the management of the increased stock of goods. And even if all the factors had been ruled out, how could the manager say their department would become the most profitable component? Among all the departments in Malu-Mart, other components like cell phone, whose sales may not be as good as office-supplies and office machines, might be much much better profitable than office supply department.

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the arguer must show some evidence that all the survey takers want to buy the office machines and office supplies. And to better evaluate the argument, the arguer should give us more information that by increase the stock of those goods, their revenue would increase with fewer costs.

bearhjUID: 2218990

嗯，逻辑很严密。
不过个人认为，在survey那里还有一些漏洞。
1.样本规模的问题。
    你提到了，不过只是作为原则提出来，没有重点来讲
2.抽样的问题。
    我觉得70%已经是一个比较有利的数字了，如果是真正的商业调查的话，应该说已经是很可观的了。不过原文没有提到抽样对象，没有界定抽样对象的范围和抽样的方式。很有可能这70%都是coincidence。

不知道提得对不对。
不过学到了你的第二点分析，以前没有想到。算是“偷师“了，嘿嘿。

欢迎回拍~~~~

Argument117
http://edu.gter.net/viewthread.p ... type%26typeid%3D102

[ 本帖最后由 bearhj 于 2006-7-27 23:36 编辑 ]

pewcg8UID: 2143213

The manager of Valu-Mart store asserts in this memo that the office-supply department will become the most profitable component of their stores by increasing at all Valu-Mart store（stores注意） the stock of home office machines and stock （两个stock用一个就可以了）of office supplies. To justify the conclusion, the author point out that 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.  This argument is unpersuasive for several reasons.（开头段的思路比较正确，但是语言不精练，复述原文的时候最好是有点语言的变化，不要照抄，这点很重要！）

First, the survey must be shown to be reliable before I can accept any conclusion based upon it. （不要质疑作者提供的论据的真实性，这点切忌！）Specifically, the responses must be accurate, and the respondents must be statistically significant in number of the overall surveyed. However, the arguer fails to supply for us what fraction those respondents take up in the overall survey takers, and what's more, only 70 percent of the respondents put forward the request.  Therefore, without evidence of the survey's reliability, it is impossible to draw any firm conclusion that all the survey takers want to take more work home with them from the workplace.（我个人觉得这个survey非要攻击，那么可以放到后边去，把比较核心的问题提到前面来．对调查的质疑首先应该建立在确认作者论据的真实性上，你的质疑核心应该在这个调查对说明作者的观点是否起到了作用！）

Secondly, the argument relies on the dubious assumption that it is because the stock of home office machines and office supply in office-supply （这个重复最好避免，虽然没什么错误．）department is insufficient that the office-supply department has not seen impressive sales. It is entirely possible that the office machines and office supply in Valu-Mart is in bad quality, or that the price of the goods is much higher than that of other stores; and it is also quite possible that because the service in the office-supply department is not as good as that in other store, people prefer to choose a store more expensive but with extremely good service. Without ruling out all this possibilities the arguer cannot reasonably conclude that the sales would increase with the augmentation of stock of office machines and office supplies.
过多质疑了是否会收益的问题，这也不是核心的问题啊！

In addition, the arguer concludes too hastily that the office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of their stores. The arguer should have take into account the revenue and cost of the office-supply department, and especially the geographic factors. It is quite possible that soon after they have increased the stock of those goods, the market price would decrease sharply. In that case, they would suffer a gigantic loss. Even the price level maintains, and their revenue increases, they may not attain much profits because they have pay more cost on the management of the increased stock of goods. And even if all the factors had been ruled out, how could the manager say their department would become the most profitable component? Among all the departments in Malu-Mart, other components like cell phone, whose sales may not be as good as office-supplies and office machines, might be much much better profitable than office supply department.（这段攻击的非常好！我没有什么可以改的地方！但是有的句子我怎么觉得很熟悉啊，比如这句：It is quite possible that soon after they have increased the stock of those goods, the market price would decrease sharply）

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the arguer must show some evidence(to show) that all the survey takers want to buy the office machines and office supplies. And to better evaluate the argument, the arguer should give us more information that by increase the stock of those goods, their revenue would increase with fewer costs.

总结：
１．ARGUMENT的套路你已经把握好了，结构都有，开头结尾也可以，语言错误比较少，语句比你的ISSUE通顺多了．
２．个人觉得你的逻辑错误没有抓的很好，核心的逻辑错误没有放在核心的地方，本文的三个逻辑攻击点的前两个找的都不好，第二个尤其是这样的，觉得你的第二点攻击有点偏．

pewcg8UID: 2143213

有的观点和嘉嘉和你都不同，不同意见咱们再讨论一下．第一次我改的有点狠的．