argument117 高频题

francisjordanUID: 209743

"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 author recommends that increasing the stock of home office machines at all Valu-Mart stores and also that of office supplies. To validate his recommendation, he cites a survey on a trend of taking work home and assume that the action will make their office-supply departments the most profitable component of their stores. This argument possesses some critical flaws for the following reasons.  

First, the argument relies on a doubtable survey of which the information provided is incomplete. The author presents insufficient evidence to validate the trend that work are more required to be taken home. The percentage of 70 seems to be representative to a degree at first glance, however, deeper down queries will undermine its strength. What is the total number of people who participate in this survey? How many of them replied? And was this survey conducted widely enough to represent the views of the majorities? Perhaps, only 100 people took part in this survey among which only 50 responded. And the finite respondents were probably the residents of one community. Thus, in this case, there is no reason to assume that this trend of taking work home is predominant and therefore cannot be used as an evidence to convince us the action as the author claimed.

Secondly, the author provides insufficient evidence to validate the conclusion. First, Since as discussed above ,we are still unsure about  the trend of sales on home office machines thus the future of this trend seems to be unclear, it is a bit peremptory to take action accordingly. Moreover, do all Valu-Mart stores are necessary to stock office-supplies? It still remains a question. For example, it maybe true that the office-supplies are rifely needed in some areas where share many office-buildings or white-collar residents. While perhaps, in areas with lots of grocery stores, shopping malls or entertainment places where the need is not so intense, the recommendation of more stock of office-supplies would seem to be somewhat untenable. Therefore, to make a wiser decision, the author has to take into consideration the characters of different places where their stores are located.

Finally, the authors depends on a gratuitous assumption that the office-supply department will become the most profitable component of all the stores. Granted that the trend of taking work home is warranted, can we absolutely claim that so ideal assumption? Maybe too early. Can he guarantee ,though people are required to take more work home , that they will take the kind of work using equipment back home? And do they have no such machines in their house under which premise they have to purchase? We will remain worried about the sales of office-supplies if these questions are not well answered. In addition, the word “most” founds no ground to stand on . How can he assure that the office-supplies are the most promising? Maybe there are some other goods with more prevalence ,such as computer, mobile phone or clothes. Until the good rewarding of other profitable components is swept out ,the assumption that the office-supply department is most profitable is still open to doubt.

In conclusion, the author provides unconvincing and inadequate evidence to lend credibility to his argument. Further information and analysis about the survey and the situation of the consumer and other component of their stores are needed before any ultimate conclusion.

jason0926UID: 200697

The author recommends that increasing the stock of home office machines at all Valu-Mart stores and also that of office supplies. To validate his recommendation, he cites a survey on a trend of taking work home and assume(assumes) that the action will make their office-supply departments the most profitable component of their stores. This argument possesses some critical flaws for the following reasons.  

First, the argument relies on a doubtable survey of which the information provided is incomplete. The author presents insufficient evidence to validate the trend that work are(is) more required to be taken home. The percentage of 70 seems to be representative to a degree at first glance, however, deeper down queries will undermine its strength. What is the total number of people who participate in this survey?(后面两句的时态应该和这一句一样吧??) How many of them replied? And was this survey conducted widely enough to represent the views of the majorities? Perhaps, only 100 people took part in this survey among which only 50 responded. And the finite respondents were probably the residents of one community. Thus, in this case, there is no reason to assume that this trend of taking work home is predominant and therefore cannot be used as an evidence to convince us the action as the author claimed.

Secondly, the author provides insufficient evidence to validate the conclusion. First, Since as discussed above ,we are still unsure about  the trend of sales on home office machines thus the future of this trend seems to be unclear, it is a bit peremptory to take action accordingly. Moreover, do all Valu-Mart stores are necessary to stock office-supplies? It still remains a question.(这里的短句好像多了) For example, it maybe true that the office-supplies are rifely needed in some areas where share many office-buildings or white-collar residents. While perhaps, in areas with lots of grocery stores, shopping malls or entertainment places where the need is not so intense, the recommendation of more stock of office-supplies would seem to be somewhat untenable. Therefore, to make a wiser decision, the author has to take into consideration the characters of different places where their stores are located.

Finally, the authors depends(depend) on a gratuitous assumption that the office-supply department will become the most profitable component of all the stores. Granted that the trend of taking work home is warranted, can we absolutely claim that so ideal assumption?(感觉so ideal assumption这个用法不太好,可不可以换一个?) Maybe too early. Can he guarantee ,though people are required to take more work home , that they will take the kind of work using equipment back home? And do they have no such machines in their house under which premise they have to purchase? We will remain worried about the sales of office-supplies if these questions are not well answered. In addition, the word “most” founds no ground to stand on . How can he assure that the office-supplies are the most promising? Maybe there are some other goods with more prevalence ,such as computer, mobile phone or clothes. Until the good rewarding of other profitable components is swept out ,the assumption that the office-supply department is most profitable is still open to doubt.

In conclusion, the author provides unconvincing and inadequate evidence to lend credibility to his argument. Further information and analysis about the survey and the situation of the consumer and other component of their stores are needed before any ultimate conclusion.
总的来说,写得很不错,语言很好,逻辑错误分析的也透,只是一些小错误,另外楼主用多长时间写这篇argu啊,感觉赶上issue字数了,呵呵,总的来说,楼主还是语言能力不错的,也来拍拍我得吧
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D2
还有我得argu117
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ge=1&highlight=

francisjordanUID: 209743

写了两个半小时，这是我的第二篇，分了两气才写下来的，现在感觉速度还是不行啊！18号就考了，急死了

你的文章我会看的，不过可能晚一天，明天白天不在家

mvpzhuangUID: 205051

The author recommends that increasing the stock of home office machines at all Valu-Mart stores and also that of office supplies. To validate his recommendation, he cites a survey on a trend of taking work home and assume that the action will make their office-supply departments the most profitable component of their stores. This argument possesses some critical flaws for the following reasons.  

First, the argument relies on a doubtable survey of which the information provided is incomplete. The author presents insufficient evidence to validate the trend that work are more required to be taken home. The percentage of 70 seems to be representative to a degree at first glance, however, deeper down queries will undermine its strength. What is the total number of people who participate in this survey? How many of them replied? And was this survey conducted widely enough to represent the views of the majorities? Perhaps, only 100 people took part in this survey among which only 50 responded. And the finite respondents were probably the residents of one community. Thus, in this case, there is no reason to assume that this trend of taking work home is predominant and therefore cannot be used as an evidence to convince us the action as the author claimed. （论证充分，可是好想写得太多了吧。有些重复性的论证，可以略去滴。）

Secondly, the author provides insufficient evidence to validate the conclusion. First, Since as discussed above ,we are still unsure about  the trend of sales on home office machines thus the future of this trend seems to be unclear, it is a bit peremptory to take action accordingly. Moreover, do all Valu-Mart stores are necessary to stock office-supplies? It still remains a question. For example, it maybe true that the office-supplies are rifely needed in some areas where share many office-buildings or white-collar residents. While perhaps, in areas with lots of grocery stores, shopping malls or entertainment places where the need is not so intense, （这里感觉有点怪。这些地方的工作似乎不需要带回家吧？我也说不清楚，反正觉得这里的举例乖乖的。今天头太晕了。）the recommendation of more stock of office-supplies would seem to be somewhat untenable. Therefore, to make a wiser decision, the author has to take into consideration the characters of different places where their stores are located.

Finally, the authors depends on a gratuitous assumption that the office-supply department will become the most profitable component of all the stores. Granted that the trend of taking work home is warranted, can we absolutely claim that so ideal（这个词不好。感觉太中式化了。） assumption? Maybe too early. Can he guarantee ,though people are required to take more work home , that they will take the kind of work using equipment back home? And do they have no such machines in their house under which premise they have to purchase? We will remain worried about the sales of office-supplies if these questions are not well answered. In addition, the word “most” founds no ground to stand on . How can he assure that the office-supplies are the most promising? Maybe there are some other goods with more prevalence ,such as computer, mobile phone or clothes. Until the good rewarding of other profitable components is swept out ,the assumption that the office-supply department is most profitable is still open to doubt.

In conclusion, the author provides unconvincing and inadequate evidence to lend credibility to his argument. Further information and analysis about the survey and the situation of the consumer and other component of their stores are needed before any ultimate conclusion.

全篇论证很充分。可是好像每一段都写得太多了，条理由点混，不知道是不是因为我今天脑袋不太清楚地问题。呵呵。偶觉得多不如清。把每个驳斥点说清楚就行了，没必要写那么多，而且考试时肯定也写不完的。
这是我的，同题。写得也不太好哈。:handshake
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ge=1&highlight=