【big fish】03月07日Argument241--bySansouci

SansouciUID: 2755036

Argument No.241

The following appeared in a memo at the XYZ company.

"When XYZ lays off employees, it pays Delany Personnel Firm to offer those employees assistance in creating resumés and developing interviewing skills, if they so desire. Laid-off employees have benefited greatly from Delany's services: last year those who used Delany found jobs much more quickly than did those who did not. Recently, it has been proposed that we use the less-expensive Walsh Personnel Firm in place of Delany. This would be a mistake because eight years ago, when XYZ was using Walsh, only half of the workers we laid off at that time found jobs within a year. Moreover, Delany is clearly superior, as evidenced by its bigger staff and larger number of branch offices. After all, last year Delany's clients took an average of six months to find jobs, whereas Walsh's clients took nine."

In this memo, the arguer claims that we use the less-expensive Walsh Personnel Firm instead of Delany is a mistake. To substantiate this conclusion, the arguer cites the example of while XYZ laid off employees, those who used Delany found jobs much more quickly than did those who did not. Additionally, the arguer also mention a fact in a eight years ago when XYZ was using Walsh, only half of the workers been unemployed at that time found jobs within a year. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

First of all, the arguer’s conclusion depends on the questionable premise that Delany Personnel Firm is superior as evidenced by its bigger and larger number of branch offices. The author cites Delany Personnel Firm has bigger and larger number of branch offices to prove we use the less-expensive Walsh Personnel Firm instead of Delany is a mistake, however, Delany Personnel Firm has a larger number of institutions couldn’t indicate it is better. The possible fact that Delany Personnel Firm operates large mounts of money cost in human resource, leading to the excessive expenses to staff. What’s more important is, who receive service from personnel firm has a keen desire to find a job, so that they would be more effective than one who do not receive the service. Thus, it is unfairly assumes that Delany Personnel Firm is superior just because it’s bigger and larger number of staff.

What’s more, another premise of this argument is Walsh Personnel Firm is inferior as less-expensive. The author provide a eight years ago evidence that when XYZ was using Walsh, only half of the workers we laid off at that time found jobs within a year. It is hardly to convince me to believe a report in eight years ago, many conditions would have changed during the past eight years. For example, Walsh Personnel Firm was a building company in eight years ago, which hasn’t enough resource to help unemployed to find jobs quickly, but in this years, Walsh’s cooperate with other big companies for a better management and varies of conditions is improved. Therefore, it hasn’t enough evidence to convince me that Walsh Personnel Firm is inferior to Delany Personnel Firm before the author gives details about Walsh Personnel Firm now.

Even if the premise of this argument is warranted, the evidence provided in this analysis is not sufficient to validate the assumption that we use the less-expensive Walsh Personnel Firm instead of Delany is a false. The arguer overlooks the crucial of problem is how the Personnel Firm’s client is. Without detailed description of jobs found by Delany’s clients and Walsh’s clients respectively, and without more information about their clients, we cannot evaluate which company is more effective.

Even if the premises and evidences is validity, the author reached in this argument is hasty generalization. The possible fact that XYZ has company financial constraints so lay off employees and only choose the less-expensive company.

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to demonstrate that condition and resource about the two companies. And the arguer must provide details the description of jobs found by two companies, respectively. What’s more, the author should learn more about XYZ financial condition.

CynthiaMomoLeeUID: 2587828

Argument No.241

The following appeared in a memo at the XYZ company.

"When XYZ lays off employees, it pays Delany Personnel Firm to offer those employees assistance in creating resumés and developing interviewing skills, if they so desire. Laid-off employees have benefited greatly from Delany's services: last year those who used Delany found jobs much more quickly than did those who did not. Recently, it has been proposed that we use the less-expensive Walsh Personnel Firm in place of Delany. This would be a mistake because eight years ago, when XYZ was using Walsh, only half of the workers we laid off at that time found jobs within a year. Moreover, Delany is clearly superior, as evidenced by its bigger staff and larger number of branch offices. After all, last year Delany's clients took an average of six months to find jobs, whereas Walsh's clients took nine."

In this memo, the arguer claims that we use the less-expensive Walsh Personnel Firm instead of Delany is a mistake. To substantiate this conclusion, the arguer cites the example of while XYZ laid off employees, those who used Delany found jobs much more quickly than did those who did not. Additionally, the arguer also mention （mentions）a fact in a eight years ago when XYZ was using Walsh, only half of the workers been （been去掉）unemployed at that time found jobs within a year. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

First of all, the arguer’s conclusion depends on the questionable premise that Delany Personnel Firm is superior as evidenced by its bigger and larger number of branch offices. The author cites Delany Personnel Firm has bigger and larger number of branch offices to prove we use the less-expensive Walsh Personnel Firm instead of Delany is a mistake, however,（句子作主语应该加that）Delany Personnel Firm has a larger number of institutions couldn’t indicate it is better. The possible fact that Delany Personnel Firm operates large mounts of money cost in human resource, leading to the excessive expenses to staff. What’s more important is, who receive service from personnel firm has a keen desire to find a job, so that they would be more effective than one who do not receive the service. Thus, it is (is去掉，或者是把后面的assume变成名词)unfairly assumes that Delany Personnel Firm is superior just because it’s bigger and larger number of staff.

What’s more, another premise of this argument is （加that）Walsh Personnel Firm is inferior as less-expensive. The author provide（单三） a eight years ago evidence that when XYZ was using Walsh, only half of the workers we laid off at that time found jobs within a year. It is hardly to convince me to believe （convince就是使信服的意思，不用在believe了）a report in eight years ago, many conditions would have changed during the past eight years. For example, Walsh Personnel Firm was a building company in eight years ago, which hasn’t enough resource to help unemployed to find jobs quickly, but in this years, Walsh’s cooperate with other big companies for a better management and varies of conditions is（are） improved. Therefore, it hasn’t enough evidence to convince me that Walsh Personnel Firm is inferior to Delany Personnel Firm before the author gives details about Walsh Personnel Firm now.

Even if the premise of this argument is warranted, the evidence provided in this analysis is not sufficient to validate the assumption that we use the less-expensive Walsh Personnel Firm instead of Delany is a false. The arguer overlooks the crucial of problem is how the Personnel Firm’s client is（好多动词导致语法错误，有的从句前面加that，有的动词应该变成动名词，使层次清晰点）. Without detailed description of jobs found by Delany’s clients and Walsh’s clients respectively, and without more information about their clients, we cannot evaluate which company is more effective.

Even if（让步用得好） the premises and evidences is （复数）validity, the author reached in this argument is hasty generalization. The possible fact that XYZ has company financial constraints so lay off employees and only choose the less-expensive company.

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to demonstrate that condition and resource about the two companies. And the arguer must provide details （about）the description of jobs found by two companies, respectively. What’s more, the author should learn more about XYZ financial condition.


语法错误有点多

错误写得还是挺详细的