argument117 cracking小组大帖

jiaojiao529UID: 2268889

The following is a memo from the business manager of valu-mart store.
“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 Va-lu 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. “
1.       调查无效，采访对象模糊。
2.       无理假设，即使回家加班的人多了并不意味着需要办公用品的数量也会增长；
3． 没有考虑其所面临的市场竞争，即有市场不等于赢利。

The argument contains several facets that are questionable. First, the reliability and generalizability of the survey are open to doubt.In addition, the argument assums that we would profitable in this work- at home trend by increasing stock of home office machines. I will discuss each of these facets in turn.

First of all, lacking information about the number of people surveyed and the number of respondents, it is impossible to access the validity of the results. For example, if 500 people were surveyed but no more than 50 responded, the conclusion that over 70 percent of the respondents are required to take more work home would be highly suspect. Besides, the arguer neglected some important factors which may impact the result of the survey. Such as the jobs they engage in , the periods the survey take place and so on. in addition, samples for the survey should be able to represent all workers who may likely to work at home. However, from the survey quoted in this argumetn, we find no sign og such procedures for random samplings, and have good reason to doubt if the sample is representative enough to reflect the general altitude of all home-workers as a whole.

Secondly, the argument relies on the assumption that the work-home trend must lead to  the strong sales in office supplies. Yet the memo provides no substantiating evidence for this assumption. Perhaps most home work did not need too much office machines and office supplies, instead, just work by using the computers. Without evidence to substantiate the assumption, I will not be convinced that the increased sales of office machines will be companied with the home-work trend.

Finally, even assuming that there will be dramatic increase in market demand for Valu-mart’s home machine and office supplies, the recommendation rests on another assumption that people will prefer Vale-nart over other merchants that sell similar products. Yet, perhaps the machines costs for office supplies will be so high as to preclude any profit from office supplies sales. Or it is highly possible that the home-workers be discapable of purchasing these machines. Thus without stronger evidence that consumers would be both willing and able to pay high prives for these office macines the author cannot convince me that this suggestion would be a profitable one.

In sum, the recommendation relies on certain doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide clear evidence that there be market demand of office supplies, and it is necessary for me to know what competition Valu-mart might face .