【Big Fish】3月7日Argument241-By jjooyy

jjooyyUID: 2704028

3.06Argument No.81
Allergies are an overreaction of the immune system to certain stimuli. One view is that allergies can develop as the result of childhood exposure to certain irritants, such as dust or animal dander, while the immune system is not yet mature. Another view is that exposure to particular bacteria early in childhood actually triggers the proper development of the immune system, and that limiting exposure to these bacteria through excessive hygiene can cause children's immune systems to overreact to certain irritants later on. A new study supports the second view: children who are washed especially frequently and whose parents clean their homes especially frequently are more likely to develop allergies than are other children. So in order to reduce the incidence of allergies in children and adults, parents should not limit children's exposure to irritants or bacteria.

The arguer claims in the memo that it is not a mistake the XYZ Company replaces Delany with the cheaper Walsh Personnel Firm, offering with the comparison of Delany and Walsh and the statistics when the company used Walsh. However, there are a few logical mistakes in it, some of which I would point out below.

To begin with, the argument unfairly suggests that Delany is superior than Walsh, as Delany has bigger staff larger, number of branch offices, and the less average time their clients find jobs. It is totally possible that Walsh devotes more money on their staff's salaries or clients instead of offices, and clients of Walsh who pay more would expect a better job, resulting in a longer time for seeking. Without other concrete evidence about how well these companies help their clients find jobs, or how many clients these company have, the conclusion that Walsh is inferior to Delany is not persuasive.

In addition, to strengthen the effectiveness of Delany, the argument present that employees who get Delany's help found jobs more quickly than others last year. However, only one year, which is a short period, cannot provide sufficient evidence the of Delany's effectiveness. Maybe last year, many companies were facing staff shortage, leading to quicker job findings, while in other times, employees will have difficulties finding suitable jobs. Therefore, the author should provide a long period of result about Delany's help, to further substantiate the statement.

Moreover, the arguer supports his/her statement by vaguely supplying some ambiguous evidence. From the memo, the employees only find a job more quickly with the assistance of Delany, and half of the employees who lay off find a job within a year when Walsh was helping. The arguer fails to provide exact statistics when Delany is helping. Perhaps, almost every employee finds a job with Walsh's help in one year, while other half people refused to take Walsh's help. On the other hand, Delany's help may be less effective by assisting them find a job in one year or more. In that case, either the company makes a mistake or it saves money by selecting Delany.

In conclusion, since no further statistics is provided to support the arguer, the statement of that it is not a mistake of choosing Delany is unconvincing. She/he should provide more detailed information about the comparison of two companies, as mentioned above, to persuade others.

哈哈 400+了 虽然逻辑错误还是找不出来很多。。。

gaobaoayu123UID: 2740997

The arguer claims in the memo that it is not？？ a mistake the XYZ Company replaces Delany with the cheaper Walsh Personnel Firm, offering with the comparison of Delany and Walsh and the statistics when the company used Walsh. However, there are a few logical mistakes in it, some of which I would point out below.

To begin with, the argument unfairly suggests that Delany is superior than Walsh, as Delany has bigger staff larger, number of branch offices, and the less average time their clients find jobs. （我觉得这可以作为两种错误来驳，后面那个关于平均数的可以另说一段）It is totally possible that Walsh devotes more money on their staff's salaries or clients instead of offices, and clients of Walsh who pay more would expect a better job, resulting in a longer time for seeking.（这一句有些长吧，应该可以写成两句话） Without other concrete evidence about how well these companies help their clients find jobs, or how many clients these company have, the conclusion that Walsh is inferior to Delany is not persuasive.（我觉得关于平均数可以说平均数并不能代表两个公司的客户找工作的速度，因为平均值受极端情况影响较大，，，，然后那个很多员工很多分公司可以说没有证据表明员工越多公司越好，也许他们效率低或他们本来水平根本就不如W，还有分公司，可能只是因为老板想扩张业务，与公司的能力完全无关，之类的）

In addition, to strengthen the effectiveness of Delany, the argument present that employees who get Delany's help found jobs more quickly than others last year. However, only one year, which is a short period, cannot provide sufficient evidence the of Delany's effectiveness. Maybe last year, many companies were facing staff shortage, leading to quicker job findings, while in other times, employees will have difficulties finding suitable jobs.（这句话没有说服性，因为即使这样他们面对的就业环境还是一样的，我觉得指出那些受Delany帮助的员工可能本来就拥有更好的条件去找工作之类的比较合适） Therefore, the author should provide a long period of result about Delany's help, to further substantiate the statement. （这段的论证方向有些偏， 题目说去年获得D帮助的员工比没被D帮助的员工找工作快，，应该是说员工的不同造成了这样的结果比较好：员工本身的素质不同，或者是没找D的想找更好的工作所以比较慢--段的那个用在这也挺合适）

Moreover, the arguer supports his/her statement by vaguely supplying some ambiguous evidence. （比较像废话）From the memo, the employees only find a job more quickly with the assistance of Delany, and half of the employees who lay off find a job within a year when Walsh was helping. The arguer fails to provide exact stiatistics when Delany is helping. Perhaps, almost every employee finds a job with Walsh's help in one year, while other half people refused to take Walsh's help.（这个论据很好） On the other hand, Delany's help may be less effective by assisting them find a job in one year or more. In that case, either the company makes a mistake or it saves money by selecting Delany.（这句话没太看懂，不是W比较便宜么，，，）

In conclusion, since no further statistics is provided to support the arguer, the statement of that it is not a mistake of choosing Delany is unconvincing. She/he should provide more detailed information about the comparison of two companies, as mentioned above, to persuade others.


总的来说就是感觉论证不到位，如果论证充分是不愁字数的
我没写这篇， 我的提纲式这样的：
一：作者武断的认为那些找工作较快是D的功劳：的员工是被D帮助的员工可能本来就比较好
二：平均数不能代表D比W好，用统计学常识可知
三：8年前的求职环境可能跟现在不一样 作者不能跨时间对比，况且没有说明有多少人在D的帮助下用多长时间找到
四：员工多，分支机构多不能证明D好
五：这个很挫---没有说XYZ找人事公司的目的是什么，也许他们只是想省钱无所谓员工找工作的效率之类的

仅供参考，蓝色是今天写的

jjooyyUID: 2704028

好吊人胃口啊。。 论证是要4-5个吗？楼上的 你说的论证不充分 是每段论述不够，还是整体的错误不够？

晓汐UID: 2774224

thanks a lot~

gaobaoayu123UID: 2740997

3# jjooyy
一般三个大错就够了 因为时间有限嘛  但现在我们列提纲的时候应该要多找吧然后再挑主要的比较好 我觉得
就是感觉你对每一条论据的展开不够充分