argument117 【Victors小组】第九次作业

totalsm45518UID: 2286658

In this memo, the arguer recommends that all Valu-Mart stores should increase their stock of home office machines and office supplies, which will guarantee many profits in their distribution. To support this recommendation, the manager cites a survey indicating that office workers take more work home with them than before, which giving a market of sales in office-supply departments. At first glance, the argument is reasonable, however, after deeper condition and understanding, this suggestion is unwarranted and unconvincing.

To begin with, the survey’s result cited by the manager, which showing that workers are required to take more work home with them from the workplace than they were in the past, lends little support to the arguer’s assumption that there will be an increase demand in office-supplies. Though there are more tasks for workers to do when they are at home, there is no guarantee that they will need obvious more office appliance at home. Maybe they can also take some small machines or office supplies such as pens, paper and staplers home at the same time without purchasing new ones in supermarkets. Or there is another possible that they only take simple work from workplace which has no need to use office machines, or they may work out other tasks at home and copy or print the final document when they are going to work the next day. Therefore, the increase of work taken home cannot ensure a correlative increase of office supplies demand.

Secondly, the manager claims that all of the Valu-Mart stores should increase the stock of home office machines and applies according to the increasing home work trend, which is unreasonable. As there is no information of the areas where that survey took place, it cannot adequately represent the national and common situation all over the world. Maybe there are only some metropolitans where plenty of business agents and industrial enterprises locate that have the trend of increased work at home. While in some small towns or countries, there are not any similar situations at all. If simply change the stock of Valu-Mart stores in all places, there will be not only no stimuli in sales but also some negative effects consequently. So the assertion that carrying this change in all stores is insensible.

Finally, the arguer oversimplified the conclusion that with these changes, the office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of stores, ignoring other factors that may affect the profit and other department conditions. Granted that there will be a great increase in office-supplies in their stores, the arguer fails to provide exact information about the margarine of those office appliances. If the cost of those machines is high and the money wasted in transporting and advertising is even higher than the profits, there is no definitely guarantee that the change will make the office-supply departments the most profitable. What’s more, the arguer fails to analyze the situation in other department, which may be more profitable.

In sum up, the arguer’s suggestion is rootless and lacks of enough evidence. To better prove the argument, the arguer should provide much more evidence demonstrating that the demands of office-supplies will have a real increase. Moreover, the manager should also take into account of other factors that may affect the stores’ profits. Other departments’ performance should be considered as well.

乳虎UID: 2251211

In this memo, the arguer recommends that all Valu-Mart stores should increase their stock of home office machines and office supplies, which will guarantee many profits in their distribution. To support this recommendation, the manager cites a survey indicating that office workers take more work home with them than before, which giving a market of sales in office-supply departments. At first glance, the argument is reasonable, however, after deeper condition and understanding, this suggestion is unwarranted and unconvincing.

To begin with, the survey’s result cited by the manager, which showing that workers are required to take more work home with them from the workplace than they were in the past, lends little support to the arguer’s assumption that there will be an increase demand in office-supplies. Though there are more tasks for workers to do when they are at home, there is no guarantee that they will need obvious[ly] more office appliance at home. Maybe they can also take some small machines or office supplies such as pens, paper and staplers home at the same time without [instead of /rather than] purchasing new ones in supermarkets. Or there is another possible[possibility另外Or there is another possible不觉得别扭吗？] that they only take simple work from workplace which has no need to use office machines, or they may work out other tasks at home and copy or print the final document when they are going to work the next day. Therefore, the increase of work taken home cannot ensure a correlative increase of office supplies demand.

Secondly, the manager claims that all of the Valu-Mart stores should increase the stock of home office machines and applies according to the increasing home work trend, which is unreasonable. As there is no information of the areas where that survey took place[was conducted], it [it指代什么]cannot adequately represent the national and common situation all over the world. Maybe there are only some metropolitans where plenty of business agents and industrial enterprises locate that have the trend of increased work at home. While in some small towns or countries, there are not any similar situations at all. If simply change the stock of Valu-Mart stores in all places, there will be not only no stimuli in sales but also some negative effects consequently. So the assertion that carrying this change in all stores is insensible.

Finally, the arguer oversimplified the conclusion that with these changes, the office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of stores, ignoring other factors that may affect the profit and other department[s‘]  conditions. Granted that there will be a great increase in office-supplies in their stores, the arguer fails to provide exact information about the margarine of those office appliances. If the cost of those machines is high and the money wasted[spent]  in transporting and advertising is even higher than the profits, [成本应该和收益比较而不是和利润比较]there is no definitely guarantee that the change will make the office-supply departments the most profitable. What’s more, the arguer fails to analyze the situation in other department, which may be more profitable.

In sum up, the arguer’s suggestion is rootless and lacks of enough evidence. To better prove the argument, the arguer should provide much more evidence demonstrating that the demands of office-supplies will have a real increase. Moreover, the manager should also take into account of other factors that may affect the stores’ profits. Other departments’ performance should be considered as well

[逻辑和结构上没什么问题，句型不够灵活，冰冻三尺，非一日之寒，大家一起努力吧]