- 最后登录
- 2010-1-26
- 在线时间
- 47 小时
- 寄托币
- 941
- 声望
- 0
- 注册时间
- 2004-8-4
- 阅读权限
- 25
- 帖子
- 1
- 精华
- 1
- 积分
- 1117
- UID
- 173024

- 声望
- 0
- 寄托币
- 941
- 注册时间
- 2004-8-4
- 精华
- 1
- 帖子
- 1
|
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."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
664w 100mins...第一次写Argue 大家往死里拍吧~~
In this memo, the business manager concludes that by increasing the stock of home office machines, such as printers, small copy machines, paper shredders, and fax machines, changes, and the stock of office supplies, such as paper, pens, and staplers at all Valu-Mart stores, the office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of their stores. To support this conclusion, the arguer cites a survey reveling that over 70 percent of the respondents require to take more work home with them from the workplace than they were in the past and that Valu-Mart has not seen impressive sales in its office-supply departments in the past. Sound as it were first seen, the argument, after carefully considered, proves a categorical deduction, which may obscure the real trend of office workers thus probably lead to no more profits for the office-supply departments.
A threshold problem of the survey is that it fails to indicate whether the representatives are representative and what proportion of people actually responded. Firstly, it is quite possible that these respondents are only selected in one or only a few states. Perhaps they are not all residents where there is a Valu-Mart store. In this case, the result of the survey may not prove a typical reflection of the people who live near all the Valu-Marts. Secondly, the survey should not be valid if some people among the survey population lack the energy to respond; in such cases, the "work-at-home trend" may be merely the effect of indolence of some people.
Besides, the manager treats a lack of impressive sales in the office-supply departments in the past as constituting sufficient proof that increasing the stock of home office machines will definitely turn out profitable. There may be several factors accounting for the lack of sales in the office-supply departments in the past. For example, perhaps the whole nation was suffering a economic depression and people have been motiveless in purchasing anything. In this case, the "work-at-home trend" would mean nothing to the department at all. It is equally possible that the management did not function effectively then. As a result, the manager can only expect a higher profit by dealing with the managing problem first, which is a "bottle-neck".
Moreover, a detailed description of comparison concerning the sales between the department of office machines and other departments is needed in order to justify whether investigating home office machines will be the most profitable. Instead of giving a comparison, the manager simply substantiates that there would be a variation if the stores transfer its stocks into home office machines. Perhaps, other departments are also taking effective measures and accordingly they may achieve a more desirable profit. And perhaps, there is some other department whose performance is much better than that of the office-supply departments, even if the office-supply departments has taken a sharp increase in its proceeds. Only the arguer rule out all these possibilities, can he or she come to a appropriate approach to development to the store.
Even assuming that the author can substantiate all of the foregoing assumptions, the justification that the office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of the stores is still unwarranted. The arguer does not weigh the advantages and disadvantages of increasing the home office machines. It is easy to understand that by doing so, we may in turn loss some other opportunities of other products, which may be more promising than the home office ones.
To sum up, the arguer rests on both equivocal foundations and ill-logical reasoning. To bolster the argument, the arguer should provide specific evidence about his or her basic assumption that they may achieve a deluge of return if they choose home office machines and that there is a immediate need for doing so. At the same time, to better assess the argument, it is suggested that the argument's proponent establish a stronger relationship that increasing home office machines will make the office-supply departments the most profitable component of their stores.
[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-7 at 10:51 ] |
|