Argument4【超越自我小组】第一次作业

apjackUID: 2381599

ARGUMENT4

The author contends that customer who intends to sell home promptly and at a good price should use Adam Realty. To substantiate this conclusion, the author points out that at Adams, it has 40 real estate agents, whereas Fitch Realty has only 25 agents, and that last year’s revenue of Adams was twice times as high as that of Fitch. Furthermore, the author shares his home sale experience in the two firms and indicates that Adam took only one month last year compared to Fitch took 4 months 10 years ago. The argument is problematic in several critical respects.

First the author assertively asserts that Adams is more superior to Fitch. And it supports by the data including the number of real estate agents, last year’s revenues and average home sales profits. The author’s assertion seems to be correct ostensibly. However, the author fails to consider the efficiency of agents, which is an important respect to determine whether Adams is superior. If we consider the efficiency of agents on home sale, that means how much profit gained by each agent. Then, it clearly indicates the efficiency of Adams’s agents is not as high as that of Fitch’s agents. Furthermore, it is worth to mention that many of Flitch’s agents work as part-time basis.

Another problem with the argument is that the author home sale experiences at the two firms might be unreliable on some respects. By comparing Adams took only a month to sell the author’s home last year; and Fitch required four months 10 years ago, the author concludes that Adams sells faster than Fitch. First, the author fails to consider that the great time discrepancy between the author home sales. It is entirely possible that the home sale market was nearly saturated 10 years ago. It is also possible that the home sale market has strongly seasonal variation. Second, the author neglects the difference between his/her homes. It is possible that the home sold at Adams recently possesses delicate decoration, excellent environment and convenient location. In short, the author cannot reasonably rely on home sale experiences at the two firms to support that selling home at Adams is faster than that at Fitch.

Finally, the author unfairly assumes that Adams always helps customer to sell home quickly and attain the greatest profit. However, this will not necessarily be the case. Perhaps Adams is not good at selling apartment in rural area as it has insufficient experience and small agent’s coverage. Or perhaps the home sale market might be devastated by economic depression or heavy tax rate in the future. Without ruling out these or other possible scenarios, the author cannot reasonably conclude that customer should find Adams for selling his/her home, but rather than other firm.

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To consolidate the argument, the author should provide concrete evidence for supporting the efficiency of Adams agents on selling home. To better evaluate the information, the author should bestow the contribution of every agent of the two firms, and the district coverage of two firms.

[ 本帖最后由 apjack 于 2008-8-14 15:35 编辑 ]

graceruruUID: 2103987

A 4
The author contends that customer whointends to sell home promptly and at a good price should use Adam Realty. Tosubstantiate this conclusion, the author points out that at Adams, it has 40real estate agents, whereas Fitch Realty has only 25 agents, and that lastyear’s revenue of Adams was twice times ashigh as that of Fitch. Furthermore, the author shares his home sale experiencein the two firms and indicates that Adam took only one month last year comparedto Fitch took 4 months 10 years ago. The argument is problematic in severalcritical respects.
( To restate or not , it a question
An article about restate.
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=134092)
First the author assertively asserts that Adamsis more superior to Fitch. And it supports by the data including the number ofreal estate agents, last year’s revenues and average home sales profits. Theauthor’s assertion seems to be correct ostensibly. However, the author fails toconsider the efficiency of agents, which is an important respect to determinewhether Adams is superior. If we consider the efficiencyof agents on home sale, that means how much profit gained by each agent. Then,it clearly indicates the efficiency of Adams’sagents is not as high as that of Fitch’s agents. Furthermore, it is worth tomention that many of Flitch’s agents work as part-time basis.

Another problem with the argument is that the author home sale experiences atthe two firms might be unreliable on some respects. By comparing Adams tookonly a month to sell the author’s home last year; and Fitch required fourmonths 10 years ago, the author concludes that Adamssells faster than Fitch. First, the author fails to consider that the greattime discrepancy between the author home sales. It is entirely possible thatthe home sale market was nearly saturated 10 years ago. It is also possible that the home sale market has stronglyseasonal variation. (is this reasonable?)Second,the author neglects the difference between his/her homes. It is possible thatthe home sold at Adams recently possessesdelicate decoration, excellent environment and convenient location. In short,the author cannot reasonably rely on home sale experiences at the two firms tosupport that selling home at Adams is fasterthan that at Fitch.

Finally, the author unfairly assumes that Adamsalways helps customer to sell home quickly and attain the greatest profit.However, this will not necessarily be the case. Perhaps Adamsis not good at selling apartment in rural area as it has insufficientexperience and small agent’s coverage. Or perhaps the home sale market might bedevastated by economic depression or heavy tax rate in the future. Withoutruling out these or other possible scenarios, the author cannot reasonablyconclude that customer should find Adams for selling his/her home, but ratherthan other firm.

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To consolidate theargument, the author should provide concrete evidence for supporting theefficiency of Adams agents on selling home. Tobetter evaluate the information, the author should bestow the contribution ofevery agent of the two firms, and the district coverage of two firms.

Your argument is not bad,but I think there’s still some logic errors you fail to notice.