argument117.欢迎拍面我

lch3216151UID: 2204710

117. 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."

Word: 472     Time: 01:05:50

In this argument, the arguer concludes that in order to increase profits of office-supply departments they should take some measures, such as increasing the stock of home office machines and office supplies. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites a survey that shows the rising trend of work-at-home. In addition, the arguer points out that Valu-Mart has not seen impressive sales in its office-supply departments in the past. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless it is.

To begin with, the arguer provides no evidence that can prove the reliance of the cited survey. It is entirely possible that only a small group of people or only a certain place's people attended the survey. The respondents of the survey can't represent all the nationwide working people. In another words, the survey can't prove the rising trend of work-at-home reasonably. Perhaps most of people aren't required to take more work home with them from the workplace now. In contrary,  maybe thework they need bring to home reduce largelly. Without considering these or other factors that affect the reliance of the survey, I can't take the argument seriously.


Furthermore, even assume the survey that reflects the real trend of the country, the arguer still doesn’t convince me that these measures will be successful. Perhaps the competitor’s productions are more attractive to customers than Valu-Mart’s whether from the productions’ quality or price. Perhaps these departments haven’t been lacked the stock of home office machines and office supplies and there isn’t necessary to increase. Or perhaps the working people do not need new home office machines or office supplies because there have been enough in their homes. The arguer can not convince me that these measures will be effective let alone help office-supply departments become the most profitable component in their stores.

Last but not least, the arguer fails to points out the reasons that why Valu-Mart’s sales in office-supply departments were not impressive. Perhaps there is something wrong with the stores’ administrative department. Perhaps the stores’ service is not very good. Or perhaps there is an economical recession in office-supply market recent years. Without considering and ruling out these or other factors that affect the sales of office-supply departments. It is no doubt these factors will impair the credibility of the recommendation.

In summary, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should provide more information concerning the reliance of the survey. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more concrete evidence that can explain why the sales of office-supply departments are not better in the past and make an investigation of demand-and-supply about office home machines and office supplies otherwise the argument is logically unacceptable.
:L:L