Argument117 [Jet小姐]第九次作业 第八篇A，欢迎拍砖

goldin2008UID: 2140085

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: 420          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2008-2-21
提纲：
1.     前提：这个趋势会带来最大利润，这个前提可能就是错的，同样的投资在别的department可能会带来更大利润；而且有趋势不一定有consumer
2.     因果没有关系，以前没有出现过的趋势，也不是我们增加stock的理由，也许能改增加广告，改善服务
3.     survey有问题
In the argument, the author draws a conclusion that office-supply departments of Valu-Mart stores should increase stock of home office machines and office supplies in order to become the most profitable component of their stores. He cites many facts and evidences to support his assertion. However, through a logical and precise scrutiny, I become aware of several fallacies in the argument that should be questioned and criticized.

As a threshold matter, even if I concede that the work-at-home trend actually exists, the conclusion is still merely based on a dubious and unsound premise that office-supply departments provide more profits than other departments. It is entirely possible that this trend is not significant factor responsible for the stores' gaining profits, at least not the only one. The speaker fails to consider and rule out other alternative explanations. Such alternatives might include the fact that investing the same money would result in more profits in other departments such as electric appliances, life products and so on. Or perhaps, the people concerned would take office supplies from their company rather than buy new ones by themselves. Any of these scenarios, if true, would undermine the conclusion. Thus, to substantiate the assumption or support the claim, the arguer should provide sufficient evidences. Thus, regardless of whether the facts and evidences used to support the premise are adequate, the argument cannot convince me.

In addition, the speaker commits a fallacy of generalization. Valu-Mart has not seen impressive sales in its office-supply department in the past. Through it should the stores adopt this measure discussed above? It is not the primary cause for increasing the stock, at alone the contributing cause. Maybe advertising and improving services are better choices.

Finally, the survey is too vague to be informative. It does not mention how broad the survey was and how the survey was conducted. Although 70 percents seem significant, the actual number of consumers might nevertheless be very low. If so, the result of the survey cannot indicate the trend, at least not compelling evidence.

To sum up, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has many flaws as discussed above. The author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. The argument could be improved by providing evidence that the trend would result in more consumers. It could be further improved by providing evidence that office-supply department is a good choice for gaining more profits than other departments in the stores. If the argument was given the factors discussed above, it would have been thorough and adequate.

滴滴雨儿UID: 2392741

In the argument, the author draws a conclusion that office-supply departments of Valu-Mart stores should increase stock of home office machines and office supplies in order to become the most profitable component of their stores. He cites many facts and evidences to support his assertion. However, through a logical and precise scrutiny, I become aware of several fallacies in the argument that should be questioned and criticized. (嗯,这回修改的模版痕迹不明显了,赞一个~)

As a threshold matter, even if I concede that the work-at-home trend actually exists, the conclusion is still merely based on a dubious and unsound premise that office-supply departments provide more profits than other departments. It is entirely possible that this trend is not a significant factor responsible for the stores' gaining profits, at least not the only one. The speaker fails to consider and rule out other alternative explanations. Such alternatives might include the fact that investing the same money would result in more profits in other departments such as electric appliances, life(daily) products and so on. Or perhaps, the people concerned would take office supplies from their company rather than buy new ones by themselves. Any of these scenarios, if true, would undermine the conclusion. Thus, to substantiate the assumption or support the claim, the arguer should provide sufficient evidences. Thus, regardless of whether the facts and evidences used to support the premise are adequate, the argument cannot convince me.(这一段模版痕迹又太明显了,完全就是套话多过于实质的分析嘛.另外我对这个题目的理解是这个manager是专门负责office-supply部门的,所以完全没有想到你会往这个角度批)
本段说不一定就只有这种方法使office-supply departments成为盈利最多的部门.

In addition, the speaker commits a fallacy of generalization. Valu-Mart has not seen impressive sales in its office-supply department in the past. (至少是没给证据说有)Through it should the stores adopt this measure discussed above? It is not the primary cause for increasing the stock, at alone the contributing cause. Maybe advertising and improving services are better choices.(这个..其实没有看懂这一段批什么了..而且感觉不应该独立成段,和上一段似乎差不多)

Finally, the survey is too vague to be informative. It does not mention how broad the survey was and how the survey was conducted. Although 70 percents seem significant, the actual number of consumers might nevertheless be very low. If so, the result of the survey cannot indicate the trend, at least not compelling evidence.(完全可以再多展开些,不仅仅是数字的问题,还有这个survey所得到的推论都是站不住脚的)
这一段说survey模糊.

To sum up, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has many flaws as discussed above. The author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. The argument could be improved by providing evidence that the trend would result in more consumers. It could be further improved by providing evidence that office-supply department is a good choice for gaining more profits than other departments in the stores. If the argument was given the factors discussed above, it would have been thorough and adequate.

我觉得这篇argument没有必要把survey的问题放最后, 因为确实是一切结论由这个survey推出来,这个前提应该先批掉.毕竟第一个分论点批之前就说承认这个前提成立感觉怪怪的. 另外感觉整篇似乎都是在往模版里凑字数吧,是不是事先没有把错误挑全? 模版句子的练习倒是到家了,这一点比我强多了,我还得多背背. 欢迎互改^_^

tomchaogreUID: 2460910

In the argument, the author draws a conclusion that office-supply departments of Valu-Mart stores should increase stock of home office machines and office supplies in order to become the most profitable component of their stores. He cites many facts and evidences to support his assertion. However, through a logical and precise scrutiny, I become aware of several fallacies in the argument that should be questioned and criticized.段意：总结观点，总起表明态度。

As a threshold matter, even if I concede that the work-at-home trend actually exists, the conclusion is still merely based on a dubious and unsound premise that office-supply departments provide more profits than other departments. It is entirely possible that this trend is not significant factor responsible for the stores' gaining profits, at least not the only one. The speaker fails to consider and rule out other alternative explanations. Such alternatives might include the fact that investing the same money would result in more profits in other departments（我觉得alternative 不能对应 fact 而应该对应investing...故我认为应该把the fact that 删去） such as electric appliances, life products and so on. Or perhaps, the people concerned would take office supplies from their company rather than buy new ones by themselves. Any of these scenarios, if true, would undermine the conclusion. Thus, to substantiate(用词准确) the assumption or support the claim, the arguer should provide sufficient evidences. Thus, regardless of whether the facts and evidences used to support the premise are adequate（让步恰当有力）, the argument cannot convince me.段意：卖家庭办公用品不一定比卖其他的赚钱。  评价：实质内容偏少，套话多。

In addition, the speaker commits a fallacy（“犯了一个谬误” 是不是应该改成“犯了一个错误”） of generalization. Valu-Mart has not seen impressive sales in its office-supply department in the past. Through it should the stores adopt this measure discussed above?（这句感觉话不太地道，如果写成Thus it is reasonable to interrogate the adoption of this measue discussed above也许更好。） (下面开始谈到什么因素最重要，这里是否要加上一个递进词What's more 或者Also)It is not the primary cause（这里是什么意思，factor的意思？） for increasing the stock, at alone the contributing cause. Maybe advertising and improving services（是否应该为improving service quality） are better choices.段意：找出作者原话用来质疑商品竞争力，并提出建议。 评价：真正有力的就第二句和第三句，个人觉得可以把这两句分析更具体些，比如not impressive 能直接说明什么，可能说明什么。

Finally, the survey is too vague to be informative（简洁）. It does not mention how broad the survey was and how the survey was conducted. Although 70 percents seem significant, the actual number of consumers might nevertheless be very low（应用small ，number用big/small修饰，voice/IQ/mark/grade/point可以用high/low修饰,小处留心）. If so, the result of the survey cannot indicate the trend, at least not compelling evidence（与上半句语法不接应，不过人人能理解倒是）.段意：质疑survey的权威性和有效性。 评价：简介有力，欣赏。

To sum up, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has many flaws as discussed above. The author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. The argument could be improved by providing evidence that the trend would result in more consumers（进一步限定 in our stores）. It could be further improved by providing evidence that office-supply department is a good choice for gaining more profits than other departments in the stores. If the argument was given the factors discussed above, it would have been thorough and adequate.段意：总结，建议。 评价：不错。结构为：指出有瑕疵，说结论太草率，建议，进一步建议，如采纳建议会更好。


总评：攻击点偏少，如还可以攻击作者没有分析竞争对手，没有评价产品本身能带来多大利润。不过，在这些点的情况下能写成如此文章已经不容易了，赞一下！我是#86 第九次和你一组，欢迎互相批评，我有什么问题只管说，不必有所顾忌，呵呵。

我的第9次作业  
Issue: http://bbs.gter.ce.cn/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=804132&page=1&extra=page%3D1#pid1771455305
Argument: http://bbs.gter.ce.cn/bbs/thread-804135-1-1.html

[ 本帖最后由 tomchaogre 于 2008-2-22 09:57 编辑 ]

ilabcUID: 2298724

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: 420          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2008-2-21
提纲：
1.     前提：这个趋势会带来最大利润，这个前提可能就是错的，同样的投资在别的department可能会带来更大利润；而且有趋势不一定有consumer
2.     因果没有关系，以前没有出现过的趋势，也不是我们增加stock的理由，也许能改增加广告，改善服务
3.     survey有问题
In the argument, the author draws a conclusion that office-supply departments of Valu-Mart stores should increase stock of home office machines and office supplies in order to become the most profitable component of their stores. He cites many facts and evidences to support his assertion. However, through a logical and precise scrutiny, I become aware of several fallacies in the argument that should be questioned and criticized.

As a threshold matter, even if I concede that the work-at-home trend actually exists, the conclusion is still merely based on a dubious and unsound premise that office-supply departments provide more profits than other departments. It is entirely possible that this trend is not significant factor responsible for the stores' gaining profits, at least not the only one. The speaker fails to consider and rule out other alternative explanations. Such alternatives might include the fact that investing the same money would result in more profits in other departments such as electric appliances, life products and so on. Or perhaps, the people concerned would take office supplies from their company rather than buy new ones by themselves. Any of these scenarios, if true, would undermine the conclusion. Thus, to substantiate the assumption or support the claim, the arguer should provide sufficient evidences. Thus, regardless of whether the facts and evidences used to support the premise are adequate, the argument cannot convince me.

In addition, the speaker commits a fallacy of generalization. Valu-Mart has not seen impressive sales in its office-supply department in the past. Through it should the stores adopt this measure discussed above? It is not the primary cause for increasing the stock, at alone the contributing cause. Maybe advertising and improving services are better choices.（看提纲知道你这里大概要说过去的趋势和增加库存没有关系，但是表达的不是很清楚）

Finally, the survey is too vague to be informative. It does not mention how broad the survey was and how the survey was conducted. Although 70 percents seem significant, the actual number of consumers might nevertheless be very low. If so, the result of the survey cannot indicate the trend, at least not compelling evidence.

To sum up, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has many flaws as discussed above. The author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. The argument could be improved by providing evidence that the trend would result in more consumers. It could be further improved by providing evidence that office-supply department is a good choice for gaining more profits than other departments in the stores. If the argument was given the factors discussed above, it would have been thorough and adequate.

第一部分写的很好，张开的很充分，但是第二，第三个感觉写的太少。第三个批驳suvery的角度是个万能的角度，所以其实显得有点弱。
同意雨儿的说法，模版的痕迹太重，但是没有很好的展开。