argument117 51互助组 by ruczephyr

ruczephyrUID: 2181202

题目：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."
字数：604          用时：00:35:00          日期：2007-7-4 22:06:16

The passage is presented to claim that an increase stock of office supplies and machines will make their office-supply departments the most profitable component in their stores. To substantiate the point, the author provides so-called reasonable evidences, such as a report to show that people are required to take more work home than ever before. The argument looks convincing on the basis of such evidence at the first glance, however, in-depth scrutiny reveals that it still suffers from several fallacies as follows.

First and foremost, the results from the report contained in the argument is not so convincing to validate that there are really a growing number of residents would take work home. Whether the report can objectively reflect the situation of working habit of the residents is still open to doubt. It is entirely possible that the surveyor deliberately omitted the individuals who would still finish their work at their workplace. Or perhaps, the people surveyed, who were not required to do so, did not give responses to the surveyor. Thus, the static of over 70 percent is still under suspicion. Moreover, the author only mentions that the respondents are required to take work home, yet, he does not verify that the respondents really did that. It is possible that these respondents preferred work at their offices rather than at home, though required, they still conformed to their ever lasting working habits. In consequence, without ruling out these adverse possibilities, the argument is far from convincing.

What is more, even grant that there will be a trend of finishing work at home, there is no sound evidence to testify that the workers needed office machines and office supplies as the author included.  As the author does not mention anything about the types of work taken home, I have enough reasons to doubt that such works, including handicraft or so, probably had nothing to do with office machines and supplies. Or even regardless the types of works, I can not exclude the possibility that the workers who are required to take office work home did not have office machines and were in a lack of office supplies. If this is the case, the increase stock of office machines and supplies would not make better sales, let alone increasing amount of profit.

Last but not least, without providing corresponding expenses of increase stock of office machines and supplies, the author is too hasty to claim that their office-supply departments will be the most profitable component in their stores. On the one hand, even though there might be an growing need for office machines and supplies, the prices of such stock were extremely high, and as a result the profit gained from average stock of office machines and supplies might not be as many as other kinds of stock. It is also possible that the expenditure for stocking and delivering office machines and supplies were also higher than other stock. So the increasing stock also brought heavy burden on the stores, let alone made profit. On the other hand, the author does not provide information to validate that the office-supply departments will be the most profitable ones, without comparing the changes of other parts of the stores. Thus, the hastiness of the author largely undermine the credibility of the argument.

In brief, the argument is convincing on the basis of ungrounded evidences, to better improve the argument, the author needs to provide further detailed information to verify that there indeed were more people who would take work home and they did need office machines and supplies, and the comparably profit between different parts of the store.

TidusnakeUID: 2281340

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."字数：604          用时：00:35:00          日期：2007-7-4 22:06:16

The passage is presented to claim that an increase stock of office supplies and machines will make their office-supply departments the most profitable component in their stores. To substantiate the point, the author provides so-called reasonable evidences, such as a report to show that people are required to take more work home than ever before. The argument looks convincing on the basis of such evidence at the first glance, however, in-depth scrutiny reveals that it still suffers from several fallacies as follows.First and foremost, the results from the report contained in the argument is not so convincing to validate that there are really a growing number of residents would take work home. Whether the report can objectively reflect the situation of working habit of the residents is still open to doubt. It is entirely possible that the surveyor deliberately omitted the individuals who would still finish their work at their workplace. Or perhaps, the people surveyed, who were not required to do so, did not give responses to the surveyor. Thus, the static of over 70 percent is still under suspicion. Moreover, the author only mentions that the respondents are required to take work home, yet, he does not verify that the respondents really did that. It is possible that these respondents preferred work at their offices rather than at home, though required, they still conformed to their ever lasting working habits. In consequence, without ruling out these adverse possibilities, the argument is far from convincing.What is more, even grant that there will be a trend of finishing work at home, there is no sound evidence to testify that the workers needed office machines and office supplies as the author included.  As the author does not mention anything about the types of work taken home, I have enough reasons to doubt that such works, including handicraft or so, probably had nothing to do with office machines and supplies. Or even regardless the types of works, I can not exclude the possibility that the workers who are required to take office work home did not have office machines and were in a lack of office supplies. If this is the case, the increase stock of office machines and supplies would not make better sales, let alone increasing amount of profit. Last but not least, without providing corresponding expenses of increase stock of office machines and supplies, the author is too hasty to claim that their office-supply departments will be the most profitable component in their stores. On the one hand, even though there might be an growing need for office machines and supplies, the prices of such stock were extremely high, and as a result the profit gained from average stock of office machines and supplies might not be as many as other kinds of stock. It is also possible that the expenditure for stocking and delivering office machines and supplies were also higher than other stock. So the increasing stock also brought heavy burden on the stores, let alone made profit. On the other hand, the author does not provide information to validate that the office-supply departments will be the most profitable ones, without comparing the changes of other parts of the stores. Thus, the hastiness of the author largely undermine(主谓) the credibility of the argument. In brief, the argument is convincing on the basis of ungrounded evidences, to better improve the argument, the author needs to provide further detailed information to verify that there indeed were more people who would take work home and they did need office machines and supplies, and the comparably profit between different parts of the store.

很完满的一篇arg了 就第二段红色那里觉得不是很好
另外题目还有各地方‘We will also increase stock of office supplies such as paper, pens, and staplers.’不觉得蛮unwarranted么