Argument117 by WCNK

wcnkUID: 2546550

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."

The arguer claimed that office-supply departments of Valu-Mart stores will become the most profitable component of our stores if we increase stock of home office machines and office supplies. To support this conclusion, the arguer offers us a survey that workers are required to take more work home with them than before. It seems convincing at the first sight. However, after deeper analysis, several logical flaws would appear.

First, the arguer fails to demonstrate the direct cause-result relationship between the survey and the conclusion. We can only learn, through the survey, that workers of Valu-Mart stores are taking more work home. It cannot draw the conclusion, claimed by the arguer, that it is a "work-at-home trend", which we could benefit from by offering them home office machines. There are dozens of possibilities which can disprove the conclusion. For one possibility is that almost all the workers have already had such home office machines, so that offering them new ones do nothing in improving their efficiency of working at home. Or maybe all the works finished are non-papered which means they can be all finished by computer. So the requirement of increasing the stock of home office machines is illogical.

Even if the survey can demonstrate that we can take advantage from work-at-home trend, and stock of home supplies should be increased, we cannot draw the conclusion that stock of office supplies should also be increased. It is obvious that office supplies have nothing to do with work-at-home trend. Maybe the stock of office supplies are already abundant that no more are needed.

Even if the survey can demonstrate that we can take advantage from work-at-home trend, it also cannot support the conclusion sound. For the vital reason that this survey is a investigation of only workers in office-supply departments. However the arguer broaden claims that all the stock of Valu-Mart stores need to be increase, Consider one possibility that departments such as transportation departments have little chance using office supplies such as paper and staples. So the claim of increment for all Valu-Mart stores' stock is unreasonable.

In all, only by reasons and the survey the arguer offered cannot we be convinced to increase the stock of home offices machines, not even mention about to increase the stock of office supplies. If the office-supply departments of Valu-Mart stores want to make an impressive sale, other methods should be adopted.

wcnkUID: 2546550

我承认我错了，第一次限时我连提都没看懂，之前写的很多胡话，大改了一番。

The arguer claimed that office-supply departments of Valu-Mart stores will become the most profitable component of our stores if we increase stock of home office machines and office supplies. To support this conclusion, the arguer offers us a survey that workers are required to take more work home with them than before. It seems convincing at the first sight. However, after deeper analysis, several logical flaws would appear.

First, the arguer fails to demonstrate the direct cause-result relationship between the survey and the conclusion. We can only learn, through the survey, that workers of Valu-Mart stores are taking more work home. It can not draw the conclusion, claimed by the arguer, that it is a "work-at-home trend", which we could benefit from by offering them home office machines. There are dozens of possibilities which can disprove the conclusion. For one possibility is that almost all the workers have already had such home office machines, so that offering them new ones do nothing in improving their efficiency of working at home. Or maybe all the works finished？ are non-papered which means they can be all finished by computer. So the requirement of increasing the stock of home office machines is illogical.


Even if the survey can demonstrate that we can take advantage from work-at-home trend, and stock of home supplies should be increased, we cannot draw the conclusion that stock of office supplies should also be increased. It is obvious that office supplies have nothing to do with work-at-home trend. Maybe the stock of office supplies are already abundant that no more are needed.

What’s more important is that, even all the assumptions mentioned above do not exist, and we adopt all the methods suggested by the arguer, the arguer fails to convince us for what reason office-supply departments would be the most profitable component of
Valu-Mart stores. Without fully and full-scale compare to other departments in Valu-Mart stores, the arguer cannot draw the conclusion. What’s more, Profit is a factor of not only revenue, but also costs.
It’s clearly that with the increase of stock of office supplies and home office machines, the cost may raise, if those things do not sell as good as estimated, the office-supply departments may be less profitable component of Valu-Mart stores.


In all, only by reasons and the survey the arguer offered cannot we be convinced to increase the stock of home offices machines, not even mention about to increase the stock of office supplies. If the office-supply departments of Valu-Mart stores want to make an impressive sale, other methods should be adopted.

桔子susanUID: 2754084

done
argument117-wcnk 桔子susan修改.doc (32 KB, 下载次数: 2)

2010-2-9 15:09:39 上传

下载次数: 2