argument117 BAXIA作业

ddloveyyUID: 2225606

TOPIC: ARGUMENT117 - 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."
WORDS: 371          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-11-27

outline:
A: survey's credibility
B: overlooks other possible reasons that affect the profit
C: even profit, no evidence shows most profitable.

Based on a questionable survey, the arguer claims that with increasing stock of home office machines and office supplies, office-supply department would be most profitable component of our stores. However, both its assumption and reasoning are not convincing, which makes the conclusion open to doubt.

First and foremost, as the base of the conclusion, the way that the survey was conducted is questionable because we lack of basic information about how it has done. Firstly, we have no information about where did the survey take place. If the survey is made in other areas which far away from our business area scope, its result cannot be applied in our business. Secondly, who responded the survey? As the survey indicates, over 70 percent of the respondents are required to take more work home from the workplace than they were in the past. How about these are needleworkers? If so, the office supplies, such as paper, pens, or the office machines as printers are totally useless for these home workers, and thus would have little effect on sales, let alone make more profits from them. Thirdly, how many people have partaken in this survey? If it contained a few people, the results would lack of representativeness, and thus the conclusion established on this would be open to doubt. Without such kind of fundamental information about the survey, we can hardly believe its authenticity and scientism.

Even the survey really indicates the work-at-home-trend, we cannot draw this conclusion that taking advantage of the trend will bring profits. After all, it should have some reasons that valu-mart has not seen impressive sales in its office-supply departments. However, the arguer fails to find the true reasons of the sale, but seems attribute it as the work-at-home trend. In fact, maybe there are other reasons which make the sales look not impressive. For example, the quality of the machines they offered to the consumers is not qualified, and then results in the bad sale. Or else, perhaps the service of the Valu-Mart may not be satisfied which make consumers lost the interests in buying goods from the stores. In such circumstances, more preparation for the work-at-home trend would be little helpful to the increase of sales and profits.

Finally, even the home office machines and other office supplies would really bring considerable profits, there is no evidence to show that office-supply department would be the most profitable part in the stores. The arguer unfairly assumes once the department makes more profits, it would be most profitable. However, it is the other way round. Other departments would equally possible to make considerable profits and have great competence when comparing with office-supply department. Specifically, since office-supply department has not impressive sales last years, new changes may take more time to reverse this situation. In this sense, the conclusion that office-supply department would be the most profitable part is lacking of credibility.

In a nutshell, both assumption and reasoning in this argument are ungrounded. To offer more advisable recommendation, it would be better to consider all the aspects comprehensively.

作文版全体版主UID: 2102351

论点上来说，还算抓得不错。你的第三点也可以批驳。
不过缺了一个点，即使调查时可信服的，是不是就代表在VM的消耗就会上升？
1.就算上升过，也许是不适用耗材的家庭办公，或者使用的少。
2.以前为何VM比较低？是因为整体行业不景气还是可能本来就没有竞争力？或者还有其他原因？

30分钟371还是比较少的字数。

你第一Body段，写到调查的可信度。不过，你到底是想说调查本身不可信。还是调查内容不可信？这个应该分成两个部分。但是你糅合在一起了。不好。

总的来说，写得不错的文章。A把思路搞好，基本你的A就过关了。

ddloveyyUID: 2225606

谢谢斑斑的批改

我觉得你说的那一点可以归结到我的第二body,貌似我们的切入点不太一样.

关于调查的内容和调查本身我有一点confused,我觉得调查本身应该是指who respond? who conduct? how many responders?这些的. 而调查的内容如果在调查本身没有问题的话应该就是可信的.这时要批的是由survey到conclusion之间的reasoning. In this sense,我的第一body应该是大多属于对调查对conclusion的适用性,应该属于reasoning的部分的问题,而第一body的thirdly是对调查本身的批驳.是这样理解吗?

关于字数,现在已经基本限时,I 500-600, A 450左右.只是IA一起写的时候,最后奄奄一息的说...

expire7UID: 2160574

是。