Argument117【0806G-Sunbird小组】第4次作业

smilecynthiaUID: 2365304

Argument 117
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."


The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. The arguer recommends that Valu-Mart stores should take advantages of the work-at-home trend by increasing the stock of home office machines in order to enhance profits. In addition, he cites the result of recent survey that over 70 percent of the respondents are required to take more work home with them from the workplace than they were in the past. Nevertheless, this argument is problematic for several reasons.
To begin with, the argument is based on a hasty generalization. The major problem with this argument is that the arguer fails to convince us that the requirement of home office machine is scaled up to correspond to the work-at-home trend. Though increasing number of people choose to work at home, it would not be essential for them to purchase such machines. The public equipments are sufficient enough to satisfy their demands.
Moreover, the evidence that the author provides is insufficient to support the conclusion to support the conclusion drawn from it. He fails to take into account some factors which would affect the result. Firstly, the author does not point out that how the survey was conducted. If the survey is conducted by the office-supply department itself, it is obvious that they will filter some echoes which are benefit to their own interests. Secondly, the arguer should ensure the informants be chosen randomly and offer compelling evidence to prove that the samples are able to represent for their whole market demand. Unfortunately, we find little sign of such procedures for sampling. Supposing the respondents are confined in a certain area, where the work-at-home people only account for a small proportion of the VM market, the decision will somewhat misleading.
Last but not least, the arguer simply equates profits with increasing the stock of home office machines. Such mere action does not necessarily improve their sales performance. The profit is attributed to the requirement of the market, the management of VM, the propaganda, the reputation of VM and the competition among companies.
As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically accepted, the arguer would have to provide more information about the demographic profile of the survey's respondents. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the factor which contributes to enhancing profits.

zxxx2972UID: 2367399

The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. The arguer recommends that Valu-Mart stores should take advantages of the work-at-home trend by increasing the stock of home office machines in order to enhance profits. In addition, he cites the result of recent survey that over 70 percent of the respondents are required to take more work home with them from the workplace than they were in the past. Nevertheless, this argument is problematic for several reasons.
To begin with, the argument is based on a hasty generalization. The major problem with this argument is that the arguer fails to convince us that the requirement of home office machine is scaled up to correspond to the work-at-home trend. Though increasing number of people choose to work at home, it would not be essential for them to purchase such machines. The public equipments are sufficient enough to satisfy their demands.（这里说得太绝对了，你也没有证据说明公共设备够用了，加个可能的语气比较好）
其实需求这个地方是一个大的逻辑错误，应该充分来展开的。这里的论述不能让人信服。
Moreover, the evidence that the author provides（直接写成the evidence provided） is insufficient to support the conclusion to support the conclusion(用个从句说明下是什么结论) drawn from it.不要了 He fails to take into account some factors which would affect the result. Firstly, the author does not point out that how the survey was conducted. If the survey is conducted by the office-supply department itself, it is obvious that they will filter some echoes which are benefit to their own interests. Secondly, the arguer should ensure the informants be chosen randomly and offer compelling evidence to prove that the samples are able to represent for their whole market demand. Unfortunately, we find little sign of such procedures for sampling. Supposing the respondents are confined in a certain area, where the work-at-home people only account for a small proportion of the VM market, the decision will somewhat misleading.（TS是说证据不充分得到结论，实际上讨论的是调查的有效性的问题，有点偏离，最好还是换下TS）
Last but not least, the arguer simply equates profits with increasing the stock of home office machines. Such mere action does not necessarily improve their sales performance. The profit is attributed to the requirement of the market, the management of VM, the propaganda, the reputation of VM and the competition among companies.
As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically accepted, the arguer would have to provide more information about the demographic profile of the survey's respondents. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the factor which contributes to enhancing profits.

文章的逻辑错误点都找到了，但是有的论述不充分。重要的要多论证，相对不重要的少论证。语言可以在简洁些，有的句子显得比较罗嗦。

可以拍下我的   https://bbs.gter.net/thread-764710-1-2.html