Argument117 【Persistence小组】第12次作业

worenleflyUID: 2270315

Merely based on the unfound assumption and dubious evidence, the memo drew the conclusion that Valu-Mart should increase the stock of home office machines and also office supplies at all Valu-Marts- that will make the office-supply the most profitable department. In support of the conclusion, the author points out that Valu-Mart has not seen impressive sales in it. In addition, he cited the result of a recent survey to support his recommendation. At first glance, this argument seems to be logical and sound; however, this argument suffers several critical flaws.

First and foremost, the threshold problem with the argument is that the argument relies on a poor analogy between stocks and sales. No evidence supports the assumption that insufficient stocks of office-supply commodity leads the sales little profitable. However, it is entirely possible that a rival large market, offering a lower price on the office commodity, which exists in the same area with Valu-Mart, attracts more customers. Perhaps the office supply in Valu-Mart has worse quality, or perhaps the certain kind of commodity offered in it does not satisfy the public's requirements in that region. If so, the assumption that a better sales relies on a sufficient stocks seems unconvincing. Therefore, lacking a firm evidence- that the only factor affects the market's sale is commodity' storage volume and sorts- to support this assumption, the conclusion that increasing the storage in office supply department for getting more profits is unwarranted.

Another fundamental problem pointed worth considering which serious weakens the logic of this argument is that- the survey that conducted recently provides unreliable data to demonstrate the author's conclusion.  The author fails to provide any information about the size of the survey' sample, the respondents' career, and so forth. The number of respondents participating in this survey which is not large enough is irrepresentive to convey the integrated information of the office-supply consuming level in this area. Moreover, ignoring the respondents' career will make the survey inaccuracy to reflect the real demand of the office-supply market. Maybe the survey just carried out on several certain jobs which weaken representativeness. Or maybe most of the job does not need much expenditure on the office commodity. Even the assumption can be demonstrated as a right one, if so, absent the firm evidence to support it, the author's conclusion is still unjustified.

In addition, it is necessary to indicate another flaw involved in this argument, even if all above can be illustrated sound, that we should not ignore its' self-flaws, that is commodity's costs. There is no information to illustrate the costs in office-supply department which intends to surpass other department in profits. Yet a higher cost of commodity makes fewer profits for it when in the same amount of sale. If so, in short, the author can not justifiablely draw, without better evidence, any conclusion about that becoming the most profitable competent through the stocks' increasment.   

To sum up, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the arguer must provide more persuasive evidence that a good sale relevant to increasing stocks directly. To evaluate the argument, the concrete situation about the survey's sample and the costs of office supply commodity is also demanded for us.

欣馨之火UID: 2183210

Merely based on the unfound assumption and dubious evidence, the memo drew the conclusion that Valu-Mart should increase the stock of home office machines and also office supplies at all Valu-Marts- that will make the office-supply the most profitable department. In support of the conclusion, （换成To support the conclusion会不会更好？）the author points out that Valu-Mart has not seen impressive sales in it. In addition, he （or she，女士就不能当经理啦？呵呵）cited（用cites会不会更好？） the result of a recent survey to support his recommendation. At first glance, this argument seems to be logical and sound; however, this argument suffers several critical flaws.

First and foremost, the threshold problem with the argument is that the argument relies on a poor analogy between stocks and sales. No evidence supports the assumption that insufficient stocks of office-supply commodity leads the sales little profitable. However, it is entirely possible that a rival large market, offering a lower price on the office commodity, which exists in the same area with Valu-Mart, attracts more customers. Perhaps the office supply in Valu-Mart has worse quality, or perhaps the certain kind of commodity offered in it does not satisfy the public's requirements in that region. If so, the assumption that a better sales relies on a sufficient stocks seems unconvincing. Therefore, lacking a firm evidence- that the only factor affects the market's sale is commodity' storage volume and sorts- to support this assumption, the conclusion that increasing the storage in office supply department for getting more profits is unwarranted.

Another fundamental problem pointed worth considering which serious（是否seriously的笔误？） weakens the logic of this argument is that- the survey that conducted recently provides unreliable data to demonstrate the author's conclusion.  The author fails to provide any information about the size of the survey' sample, the respondents' career, and so forth. The number of respondents participating in this survey which is not large enough is irrepresentive（好像没有这个单词？） to convey the integrated information of the office-supply consuming level in this area. （这句包含了用large修饰survey，用“不具代表性”修饰number，前一个修饰值得斟酌，后一个修饰，大概需要重新考虑用词或者换一种说法。）

Moreover, ignoring the respondents' career will make the survey inaccuracy to reflect the real demand of the office-supply market. Maybe the survey just carried out on several certain jobs which weaken representativeness.（这个representativeness在word这儿不被认同，金山词霸也查不到。名词形式，有：representation和representability，可斟酌使用） Or maybe most of the job does not need much expenditure on the office commodity. Even the assumption （the assumption，哪个assumption？好像有点所指不明。如果指你说的“most of the jobs …”，那么，语意好像就不对了）can be demonstrated as a right one, if so, absent the firm evidence to support it, the author's conclusion is still unjustified.

In addition, it is necessary to indicate another flaw involved in this argument, even if all above can be illustrated sound, that we should not ignore its' self-flaws, that is commodity's costs. There is no information to illustrate the costs in office-supply department which intends to surpass other department in profits. Yet a higher cost of commodity makes fewer profits for it when in the same amount of sale. If so, in short, the author can not justifiablely（似乎是justifiably的笔误？） draw, without better evidence, any conclusion about that becoming the most profitable competent through the stocks' increasment.（没有这个词吧？increase本身可以做名词）  

To sum up, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the arguer must provide more persuasive evidence that a good sale relevant to increasing stocks directly. To evaluate the argument, the concrete situation about the survey's sample and the costs of office supply commodity is also demanded for us.（for us可否考虑去掉？不要这个也很完整了。）

1.       思想性没有什么问题，基本找出了文章的主要逻辑错误，自己本身的论证也有力。
2.       结构安排上，合理。从最主要矛盾到次要矛盾，一个个让步论述，不错。
3.       语言，argument的语言好像不用怎么说了，大体差不多。
4.  总的来说，好像argument的问题不大。关键在临场要迅速理清思路，排好结构，疯狂打字。

[ 本帖最后由 欣馨之火 于 2007-2-13 22:04 编辑 ]