Argument233【0906G 文以载道三月四月小组】作业2.3 by NormalFuJen

NormalFuJenUID: 2571208

这篇写的不好
Argument 233
"The surface of a section of Route 101, paved two years ago by McAdam Road
Builders, is now badly cracked and marred by dangerous potholes. In
another part of the state, a section of Route 66, paved by Appian Roadways
more than four years ago, is still in good condition. Appian Roadways has
recently purchased state-of-the-art paving machinery, and it has hired a
new quality-control manager. Because of its superior work and commitment
to quality, we should contract with Appian Roadways rather than McAdam
Road Builders to construct the access roads for all our new shopping
malls."


The author of this argument claims that the company should contract with Appian Roadways to construct the access roads rather than McAdam because Appian has better quality and commitment. To support his recommendation, the author cites the  good condition of the road built by Appian as well as the newly purchased machinery and hired quality-control manager.  Close scrutiny of this evidence reveals that it lends little credible support for the author's assertion.


To begin with, the comparison between the roads' condition seems to lend to the conclusion that Appian has a better quality in construction. However, it is entirely possible that there are far more vehicles traveling on the Route 101, bringing about more damages, while less damages occured in Route 66 as there are less traffic. Without ruling out this factor, the author could not convince me that Appian provides a better quality, let alone to contract with Appian.


Newly purchased state-of-the-art machinery and hired quality-control mananger is anther reason for the author's recommendation. However, he provides neither the operation situation of the machinery nor the ability of the manager. Perhaps the workers of Appian are used to the old machinery and could not operate the new machinery as well as they did with the old machinery. In this case, the quality of the road would get worse instead of better. Moreover, the newly hired manager is another questionable factor. He may be not experienced enough to ensure the quality of the road. In short, the author needs to provide the operation situation of the new machinery as well as the ability of the manager to strengthen his recommendation.


Another problem with the argument is that the construction of the access road for shopping mall is different from that of ordinary road. It is highly possible that those who do well in building traffic roads are not experienced enough to construct a good access road, which needs not road quality but also the appearance to appeal more customers. In other words, the author should provide us with the materials about whether the two company could built a qualified access road for the shopping mall.


In sum, the vice president's recommendation is not well supported. To strengthen it, the author must provide the qualified evidence that Appian is able to provide better quality in road construction. To better evaluate the argument, there must be further evidence that Appian is more experienced in constructing access road.