ARGUMENT117 [Victors小组]第八次作业 by jennetrj

jennetrjUID: 2275453

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."

541 WORDS  30 MIN

In this argument, the author concludes that office-supply departments of Valu-Mart stores would be the most profitable ones of the total. To justify this conclusion, the author cites the recent survey indicating increased requirement for work at home according to most of the respondents. Moreover, the author points out that office-supply stores didn't have impressive sales so that more stock of office supplies should prove to be success if they take advantage of work-at-home trend. At first glance, the argument seems to be somehow plausible, but close scrutiny reveals several flaws in it.

To begin with, the author fails to ensure us the reliability of the recent survey. There's no indication of how many people were interviewed by the researchers and the exact number of the respondents. Or we could find no information about the representative of the samples. It is totally possible that only 10 persons were asked about their working pattern, of which 7 people replied their trend of more work at home. Or perhaps people who were involved in the survey happened to be software engineers who usually accomplish their work at home. Until the author provides more statistical data about the survey, the conclusion based on it could not be taken seriously.

Even people are required to take more work home recently, it doesn't promise that the trend will continue. Perhaps it happened to be a time of thriving, and there will possibly be another recession in next month and more people might be laid off. Or maybe employees are tired of doing extra work at home so that they might go on a strike trying end this unfair issue and reverse the condition. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine author's assumption that there are more needs for stationery.

Granted that people have to work more at home, the author fails to prove that they need more office-supply or home office machines at home. Perhaps people only have to do their work on the laptops and e-mail the files to their bosses. Or if there's the needs for such supplies at home, they've already have enough for their work. Author's failure to eliminate or even consider such possibilities renders the conclusion that office-supply needs will increase highly suspect.

Furthermore, the author reaches the conclusion that office-supply departments will be the most profitable one of the firm based on another assumption that customers would like to buy those facilities at Valu-Mart. No promise could be made about that. There are other facts might interfere with people's decision, such as the price, service and convenience of purchasing. Without ruling out such possibility, author's allegation that people will buy stuffs at their stores could not be accepted.

In sum, the argument is groundless as it stands. To consolidate it, the author should provide more evidence to show the reliability of the recent survey and ensure that the trend will continue to the future. In addition, the author should rule out other related possibilities so as to establish the causal relationship between work-at-home trend and increasing needs for office supplies. To better evaluate the argument, we need to know whether people would like to buy supplies at  Valu-Mart and if this strategy would bring more profits to the company.

solartorchUID: 2244205

In this argument, the author concludes that office-supply departments of Valu-Mart stores would be the most profitable ones of the total. To justify this conclusion, the author cites the recent survey indicating increased requirement for work at home according to most of the respondents. Moreover, the author points out that office-supply stores didn't have impressive sales so that more stock of office supplies should prove to be success if they take advantage of work-at-home trend. At first glance, the argument seems to be somehow plausible, but close scrutiny reveals several flaws in it.

To begin with, the author fails to ensure us the reliability of the recent survey. There's no indication of how many people were interviewed by the researchers and the exact number of the respondents. Or we could find no information about the representative of the samples. It is totally possible that only 10 persons were asked about their working pattern, of which 7 people replied their trend of more work at home. Or perhaps people who were involved in the survey happened to be software engineers who usually accomplish their work at home. Until the author provides more statistical data about the survey, the conclusion based on it could not be taken seriously. 第一段先说survey的问题

Even people are required to take more work home recently, it doesn't promise that the trend will continue. Perhaps it happened to be a time of thriving, and there will possibly be another recession in next month and more people might be laid off. 下岗不是带工作回家的反例，这样写有点无厘头 Or maybe employees are tired of doing extra work at home so that they might go on a strike trying end this unfair issue and reverse the condition. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine author's assumption that there are more needs for stationery. more needs for stationery好像是一个间接地assumption了，这段讨论的问题仿佛只能undermine the assumption that this trend of working at home will continue.楼主这样写感觉有点跳。个人意见有待考证~

Granted that people have to work more at home, the author fails to prove that they need more office-supply or home office machines at home.Granted 用得很好 Perhaps people only have to do their work on the laptops and e-mail the files to their bosses. Or if there's the needs for such supplies at home, they've already have enough for their work. Author's failure to eliminate or even consider such possibilities renders the conclusion that office-supply needs will increase highly suspect.

Furthermore, the author reaches the conclusion that office-supply departments will be the most profitable one of the firm based on another assumption that customers would like to buy those facilities at Valu-Mart. No promise could be made about that. There are other facts might interfere with people's decision, such as the price, service and convenience of purchasing. Without ruling out such possibility用复数, author's allegation that people will buy stuffs at their stores could not be accepted.

In sum, the argument is groundless as it stands. To consolidate it, the author should provide more evidence to show the reliability of the recent survey and ensure that the trend will continue to the future. In addition, the author should rule out other related possibilities so as to establish the causal relationship between work-at-home trend and increasing needs for office supplies. To better evaluate the argument, we need to know whether people would like to buy supplies at  Valu-Mart and if this strategy would bring more profits to the company.

这篇文章30分钟限时写出来还是很不错的，条理还蛮清楚，每段的论证稍稍有点简单不过考虑所用时间的话已经很好了！