Arugument241，XYZ的两公司比较

colin8741UID: 2835824

ARGUMENT241 - 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."

The suggestion drawn from the memo above that the XYZ company should still hire Delany Personnel Firm(DPF) rather than Walsh Personnel Firm(WPF) to offer laid-off employees assistance in finding new jobs is not convincing due to several logical flaws.

At the beginning of the memo, the author claims that the laid-off employees who used Delany found jobs much more quickly than did those who did not. While a definition of “much more quickly” is lacked, the conclusion is vague. The number of employees who were laid off is unknown as well as the percentage of who asked the DPF for help. Perhaps the ones assisted by DPF are of high qualities that are easier to get new jobs than those who did not seek assistance by DPF. Including these, the assertion that employees have benefited greatly from DPF’s service is ungrounded.

Meanwhile, to judge WPF with its performance eight years ago is also not reasonable. The employment condition then cannot be compared with it now; because of the development of the society, many companies and factories may create more jobs than before. Or perhaps there was a economic crisis eight years, thus people hard to find a job. The claim that only half of the workers laid off that time found jobs within a year cannot prove WPF’s inability, for the possibility that not all the workers laid off went for assistances by WPF. Maybe all the people who seek for help were the half who got new jobs within a year in that tough time. We also cannot decide whether finding a job within a year is quick or not eight years ago.

Further more, to praise DPF by its larger branch of offices and bigger staff is not justified; what we should emphasize on is its efficiency and the time cost. There may exist this possibility that because of the large and complex system of the firm, it definitely have many clients and may not better help our laid-off employees.


To demonstrate that DPF is superior by presenting the fact that Delany's clients took an average of six months to find jobs, whereas Walsh's clients took nine last year is still not sensible. The clients engaged in the survey are not identified, we know nothing about their specialties, and their former companies as well as the cities they worked in, all of which talked above may be different. The clients who seek assistance by DPF were probably the ones with high qualities and specialized in certain field, who maybe worked in big cities where there were lots of opportunities. While the laid-off employees who were assisted by WPF may be the ones lack of specialized skill or the ones who wanted to work in the countryside where there were less job offered.

Considering the factors discussed above, the author cannot judge the two personnel firm easily without thoroughgoing comparation on its working efficiency of the same kind of laid-off employees and in the same time with same criteria.

追梦小木耳UID: 2781857

The suggestion drawn from the memo above that the XYZ company should still hire Delany Personnel Firm(DPF) rather than Walsh Personnel Firm(WPF) to offer laid-off employees assistance in finding new jobs is not convincing due to several logical flaws.

At the beginning of the memo, the author claims that the laid-off employees who used Delany found jobs much more quickly than did those who did not（第一个did可以去掉）. While a definition of “much more quickly” is lacked, the conclusion is vague. The number of employees who were laid off is unknown as well as the percentage of who asked the DPF for help. Perhaps the ones assisted by DPF are of high qualities（quality） that are easier to get new jobs than those who did not seek assistance by DPF. Including these, (用consedering these 是不是好一点)the assertion that employees have benefited greatly from DPF’s service is ungrounded.(我觉得这一段说没有对much more quickly的定义，有点勉强。可以说没有证据说找到工作用时间短的，就是找到工作好的。另外，我觉得你对high quality的论述也不太充分，仅仅提了一下，没有深入作假设)
Meanwhile, to judge WPF with its performance eight years ago is also not reasonable. The employment condition then cannot be compared with it now; because of the development of the society, many companies and factories may create more jobs than before. Or perhaps there was a（an） economic crisis eight years ago, thus people were hard to find a job. The claim that only half of the workers laid off that time found jobs within a year cannot prove WPF’s inability, for the possibility that not all the workers laid off went for assistances by WPF. Maybe all the people who seek for help were the half who got new jobs within a year in that tough time. We also cannot decide whether finding a job within a year is quick or not eight years ago.

Further more, to praise DPF by its larger branch of offices and bigger staff is not justified; what we should emphasize on is its efficiency and the time cost. There may exist this possibility that because of the large and complex system of the firm, it definitely have many clients and may not better help our laid-off employees.To demonstrate that DPF is superior by presenting the fact that Delany's clients took an average of six months to find jobs, whereas Walsh's clients took nine last year is still not sensible. The clients engaged in the survey are not identified, we know nothing about their specialties, and their former companies as well as the cities they worked in, all of which talked above may be different. The clients who seek assistance by DPF were probably the ones with high qualities and specialized in certain field, who maybe worked in big cities where there were lots of opportunities. While the laid-off employees who were assisted by WPF may be the ones lack of specialized skill or the ones who wanted to work in the countryside where there were less job offered. （这一段的论述很充分）

Considering the factors discussed above, the author cannot judge the two personnel firm easily (simply ) without thoroughgoing comparison on its working efficiency of the same kind of laid-off employees and in the same time with same criteria.

找到很多反驳的方面。有些方面还需深入。我觉得有些用词不太合适，你再琢磨一下

yuling-10GUID: 2849632

The suggestion drawn from the memo above that the XYZ company should still hire Delany Personnel Firm(DPF) rather than Walsh Personnel Firm(WPF) to offer laid-off employees assistance in finding new jobs is not convincing due to several logical flaws.

At the beginning of the memo, the author claims that the laid-off employees who used Delany found jobs much more quickly than did those who did not. While a definition of “much more quickly” is lacked, the conclusion is vague. The number of employees who were laid off is unknown as well as the percentage of who asked the DPF for help. Perhaps the ones assisted by DPF are of high qualities that are easier to get new jobs than those who did not seek assistance by DPF. Including these, the assertion that employees have benefited greatly from DPF’s service is ungrounded.

Meanwhile, to judge WPF with its performance eight years ago is also not reasonable. The employment condition then cannot be compared with it now; because of the development of the society, many companies and factories may create more jobs than before. Or perhaps there was a economic crisis eight years (ago?), thus people hard to find a job(jobs?这个我不确定). The claim that only half of the workers laid off （laid-off workers是不是更好？）that time found jobs within a year cannot prove WPF’s inability, for the possibility that not all the workers laid off went for assistances by WPF（consulting WPF是不是更合适？这个我想了一下午，不知道这个词是否合适）. Maybe all the people who seek for help （with the help of DPF 或者seeking for help就是类似这种的句式结构）were the half who got new jobs within a year in that tough time. We also cannot decide whether finding a job within a year is quick or not eight years ago.

Further more, to praise DPF by its larger branch of offices and bigger staff is not justified; what we should emphasize on is its efficiency and the time cost. There may exist this possibility that because of the large and complex system of the firm, it definitely have many clients and may not better help our laid-off employees.


To demonstrate that DPF is superior by presenting the fact that Delany's clients took an average of six months to find jobs, whereas Walsh's clients took nine last year is still not sensible. The clients engaged in the survey are not identified, we know nothing about their specialties, and their former companies as well as the cities they worked in, all of which talked above may be different. The clients who seek（seeking） assistance by（by合适么？个人觉得DPF‘services更合适） DPF were probably the ones with high qualities and specialized in certain field, who maybe worked in big cities where there were（with） lots of opportunities. While the laid-off employees who were assisted by WPF may be the ones lack of specialized skill or the ones who wanted to work in the countryside where there were less job offered.

Considering the factors discussed above, the author cannot judge the two personnel firm easily without thoroughgoing comparation on its working efficiency of the same kind of laid-off employees and in the same time with same criteria.

最后一段是不是太简单了？
我看范文好像没有这么简单就收尾的

colin8741UID: 2835824

served by 我觉得这个词应该就是我文中那些该被替换的 assistance