argument117 [smile-B组] 第六次作业， 请多多批评！～

applehattieUID: 2195344

1.        The validity of the survey is doubtful.
2.        Granted that the work-at-home trend is reliable, we cannot ensure that the people who work at home need those office machines and supplies.
3.        The author fails to provide substantial evidence to prove that their profit would significantly increase.

By the presumption that many people are taking their work home, the author confirms that the demand of office supply would increase and they can enhance the departments profits significantly. This argument seems convincing at the first glance, but after careful pondering, I find it suffer from several flaws.

The validity of the survey is doubtful, one needs to consider how the survey was conducted. Maybe the people who controlled the survey are not responsible for their work, they did not oversee the process carefully, and they did not analyze the data thoroughly. Also, we are not well informed that how broader was the survey. Maybe the respondents were all come from one single company not the overall firms in the region of Valu-Mart, maybe only few of the participants of the survey responded. So without providing substantial evidence to validate the survey, the allegation that people are taking work home is ungrounded.

Granted that people are required to take more work home, we cannot ensure that the demand of office machine and supply would significantly increase in Valu-Mart . Even if people are planning to take more work, it does not necessarily mean that they would like to purchase relative office supplies from the Valu-Mart. It might be the case that, in order to save money and time many officers accomplish their works that need use office machines in company. It might also the case that there are other marts or shops which also provide office supplies near the Valu-Mart to the consumers, at the same time, the prices are much lower in other marts. Without excluding other possibilities I discuss here, the deduction is gratuitous.

Another significant fallacy, from which this argument suffers, is that by increasing the stock of home office supplies the departments would enhance the profits. Perhaps with the increasing number of orders to the factory which produce these office supplies, the prices of the products relatively reach higher, the cost of the office supplies are becoming higher , then the allegation that the office-supply departments would become the most profitable component is unwarranted.

In sum, this argument seems plausible, in fact, it is neither sound nor persuasive. The author should provide sufficient information of the survey, and rule out other possible alternatives about the conclusion. If the passage includes the given factors discussed above, it will be thorough and convincing.

[ 本帖最后由 applehattie 于 2006-8-3 12:02 编辑 ]

zhy5186612UID: 2167373

1.        The validity of the survey is doubtful.
2.        Granted that the work-at-home trend is reliable, we cannot ensure that the people who work at home need those office machines and supplies.
3.        The author fails to provide substantial evidence to prove that their profit would significantly increase.

By the presumption that many people are taking their work home, the author confirms that the demand of office supply would increase and they can enhance the departments profits significantly. This argument seems convincing at the first glance, but after careful pondering, I find it suffer from several flaws.

The validity of the survey is doubtful, one needs to consider how the survey was conducted. Maybe the people who controlled the survey are not responsible for their work, they did not oversee the process carefully, and they did not analyze the data thoroughly[这点有点感觉像歪理 哈哈，你直接向下面一样说杨本小，局限在一个地区好了]. Also, we are not well informed that how broader was the survey. Maybe the respondents were all come from one single company not the overall firms in the region of Valu-Mart [这个只是超市的名字吧？], maybe only few of the participants of the survey responded. So without providing substantial evidence to validate the survey, the allegation that people are taking work home is ungrounded.

Granted that people are required to take more work home, we cannot ensure that the demand of office machine and supply would significantly increase in Valu-Mart . Even if people are planning to take more work [home], it does not necessarily mean that they would like to purchase relative office supplies from the Valu-Mart. It might be the case that, in order to save money and time many officers [officers这个词通常是政府官员吧换employer怎么样] accomplish their works that need use office machines in company. It might also the case that there are other marts or shops which also provide office supplies near the Valu-Mart to the consumers, at the same time, the prices are much lower in other marts. Without excluding other possibilities I discuss here, the deduction is gratuitous.

Another significant fallacy, from which this argument suffers, is that by increasing the stock of home office supplies the departments would enhance the profits. Perhaps with the increasing number of orders to the factory which produce these office supplies, the prices of the products relatively reach higher, the cost of the office supplies are becoming higher , then the allegation that the office-supply departments would become the most profitable component is unwarranted.

In sum, this argument seems plausible, in fact, it is neither sound nor persuasive. The author should provide sufficient information of the survey, and rule out other possible alternatives about the conclusion. If the passage [？] includes the given factors discussed above, it will be thorough and convincing.

个人看法哈
1 逻辑线：study-------->work-at-home-trend-------->profit---------->most profitable component
所以你忘了攻击profit---------->most profitable component这点，即即使盈利也未必是最赚钱的部门啊，没有和其他部门对比
2 攻顺序问题 ，我在你上篇A里说了