Argument117 [天道酬勤小组] 限时没成功，欢迎互拍

yaoqian0424UID：2323517

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 361          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-7-23 上午 12:03:40

The arguer states that the office-supply department of Valu-Mart (VM) should increase some certain kinds of office supplies in order to be the top profitable components of VM stores. To bolster his assertion, the arguer cites a recent survey of the work-at-home trend to infer the mentioned office supplies would in great need. However, this argument relies on a series unproven assumption and is not convincing as it stands.

First of all, the recent survey cited by the arguer is insufficient for us to infer the so-called work-at-home trend. The arguer can not provide evidence to lend credence to support that the survey’s sample is sufficient in size and representative the overall residents in VM. Though 70 percent of respondents appear to accord with the trend, however, if the total number of people involved in this survey is very small, we can not confidently depend on this survey. Besides, the arguer fails to offer any information about the careers of the respondents and the reason for them to take work home. It is entirely possible that the respondents within the survey are limited to certain careers such as correspondents who have to bring more work home to cover the temporary task, from which we can not deduce the overall trend. Lacking above mentioned information about the survey, we can hardly access to the confident conclusion that people increasingly take more work home.

Even if we concede such word-at-home trend, we still can not convince that the office supplies mentioned in the arguer's recommendation are in great need. Perhaps, people have already had some office machines and other supplies at home which are sufficient to address the need of increasing work. Or perhaps, the office supplies in need are various in kind considering the diverse type of work, which may not accord with the certain kinds that the arguer suggests. For that matter, the increasing storage may come out to be a waste of time and money. Either of the foregoing scenarios, if true, would cause high suspicion of arguer's suggestion about expand the storage of office supplies.

Moreover, as to the arguer's expectation to be the top profitable department of VM stores, it is even unwarranted to support. As we all know, the profitability includes not only revenue but also expense. The arguer ignores the additional transportation and storage fee and the high cost to purchase more office supplies, all of which may offset the added revenue from the sales. Besides, the arguer offers no information about other departments which also compete to court more profits. Maybe they would be more profitable than office-supply department after carrying out their own practical and efficient plans. Without taking into account such possibilities, the arguer can not lend persuasive support to his conclusion as his office-supply department would be the top profitable component in the stores.

In sum, this argument lacks credibility for its untenable survey and gratuitous assumption. To evaluate it more effectively, the arguer should get down to investigate whether people take more work home than in the past to figure out the actual needs of home office machines and other office supplies with the exact kinds in need.

PilotBearUID：2269456

The arguer states that the office-supply department of Valu-Mart (VM) should increase some certain kinds of office supplies in order to be the top profitable components of VM stores. To bolster his assertion, the arguer cites a recent survey of the work-at-home trend to infer the mentioned office supplies would in great need. However, this argument relies on a series unproven assumption and is not convincing as it stands.（嗯，你的开头已经模式化了，可以练得熟一点，考试节省时间）

First of all, the recent survey cited by the arguer is insufficient for us to infer the so-called work-at-home trend. The arguer can not（does not吧，不是能力问题） provide evidence to lend credence to support that the survey’s sample is sufficient in size and representative （+of，好像是be sufficient of）the overall residents in VM. Though 70 percent of respondents appear to accord with the trend, however, if the total number of people involved in this survey is very small, we can not confidently depend on this survey（这句不好）. Besides, the arguer fails to offer any information about the careers of the respondents and the reason for them to take work home. It is entirely possible that the respondents within the survey are limited to certain careers such as correspondents who have to bring more work home to cover the temporary task, from which we can not deduce the overall trend. Lacking above mentioned information about the survey, we can hardly access to the confident conclusion that people increasingly take more work home.

Even if we concede such word-at-home trend, we still can not convince that the office supplies mentioned in the arguer's recommendation are in great need.（没有论证） Perhaps, people have already had some office machines and other supplies at home which are sufficient to address the need of increasing work. Or perhaps, the office supplies in need are various in kind considering the diverse type of work, which may not accord with the certain kinds that the arguer suggests. For that matter, the increasing storage may come out to be a waste of time and money. Either of the foregoing scenarios, if true, would cause high suspicion of arguer's suggestion about expand the storage of office supplies.

Moreover, as to the arguer's expectation to be the top profitable department of VM stores, it is even unwarranted to support. As we all know, the profitability includes not only revenue but also expense. The arguer ignores the additional transportation and storage fee and the high cost to purchase more office supplies, all of which may offset the added revenue from the sales. Besides, the arguer offers no information about other departments which also compete to court more profits. Maybe they would be more profitable than office-supply department after carrying out their own practical and efficient plans. Without taking into account such possibilities, the arguer can not lend persuasive support to his conclusion as his office-supply department would be the top profitable component in the stores.（argument不是有反例就能能驳倒作者立场的。反例要尽量合理，还要有些论证）

In sum, this argument lacks credibility for its untenable survey and gratuitous assumption. To evaluate it more effectively, the arguer should get down to investigate whether people take more work home than in the past to figure out the actual needs of home office machines and other office supplies with the exact kinds in need.

写的好长啊，可以稍微写短点儿，把句子写的更通顺一些。
不知这个帖子你看过没有[url=https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=416323&extra=page%3D1]https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=416323&extra=page%3D1[/url]
看看