argument117 同主题写作，欢迎互拍交流

快乐的忧郁着UID: 2112574

欢迎来拍砖，有拍必回！:lol

117The 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."



Merely based on unconvinced assumption and doubtful evidences, the arguer draws conclusion that office-supplies departments will become the most profitable component of their stores. To support the conclusion, the arguer cites the result of a survey which reported that over 70 percent respondents work home more than before. While this argument seems somewhat specific and plausible at first glace, close inspection would reveal it fraught with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted claim in several aspects.

To begin with, the result of the survey is open to doubt. We are nor informed how many people were studied, the vocation of those people, and the percent of responder account for the whole people. If, for instance, 1000 people were surveyed but only 10 echoed, the validity of the survey is highly suspect because the respondent may be the same sort. Moreover, if the survey are took in the daytime on weekdays to the home of the people, in fact, those people worked at home most of time, the result of survey could not represent the general attitude of the workers as a whole. Therefore, the conclusion based on such an unconvinced survey is groundless.

Additionally, the arguer assumes that the people who work home would buy more office machines. However, it is not necessary the case. Granted that the survey is validity, there is no evidence to support the assumption. In fact, most people are required to work home to type the article or the plan of an program to the computer and e-mail to the manager. Obviously, those work does not need printers, small copy machines or paper shredders. Moreover, even if people work home need some office-machine to help them work, they would not buy those machines if the company refuse to provide money to buy. Of course, those people do not need to spent their own money to purchase something only benefit to the company. Without pointing out such possibilities, the conclusion is highly doubtful.

Finally, even if people who work home, the arguer fails to provide the evidence to demonstrate office supply departments will become the most profitable component of their stores. Economic theory tells us, the profit is determined by supply-demand market and cost-benefit analysis. There may be so many stores to provide such machines, thus the market is competitive. Even if this department sell their office-machines well, it does not mean they would get more profit. Perhaps the cost of those machines had increase and at the same time the prices of those machines had decrease because of the competitive. All of those possibilities would diminish the profit rather than increase them.

To sum up, the argument irresponsibly and rashly give out the assumption, and the evidences has not lend strong support to the conclusion, To strengthen this argument, the arguer would make a comprehensive and thorough investigation of the market of office-machine and the trend of work home. More details it provides, more reasonable it is.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-29 at 00:24 ]

快乐的忧郁着UID: 2112574

自己顶一个，谢谢！

快乐的忧郁着UID: 2112574

啊，还是没人来，看来写的太差劲了？？？？？

clearbabyUID: 2114410

占座，一会帮你拍，我先写篇issue
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D7
这是我今天写的

clearbabyUID: 2114410

Merely based on unconvinced（应该是unconvincing） assumption and doubtful evidences, the arguer draws（好象应该有the吧） conclusion that office-supplies departments will become the most profitable component of their stores. To support the conclusion, the arguer cites the result of a survey which reported that over 70 percent respondents work home more than before. While this argument seems somewhat specific and plausible at first glace, close inspection would reveal it fraught with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted claim in several aspects. （这句感觉有些别扭，建议请教一下牛人，我看不出哪有问题，但觉得不妥）
开头简洁明确，蛮好~~

To begin with, the result of the survey is open to doubt（这个表达...我水平低，不大理解）. We are nor（not） informed how many people were studied, the vocation of those people, and the percent of responder account for the whole people. If, for instance, 1000 people were surveyed but only 10 echoed, the validity of the survey is highly suspect because the respondent may be the same sort. Moreover, if the survey are took in the daytime on weekdays to the home of the people（什么意思？）, in fact, those people worked at home most of time, the result of survey could not represent the general attitude of the workers as a whole. Therefore, the conclusion based on such an unconvinced（unconvincing） survey is groundless.

Additionally, the arguer assumes that the people who work home would buy more office machines. However, it is not necessary the case. Granted that the survey is validity, there is no evidence to support the assumption. In fact, most people are required to work home to type the article or the plan of an program to（这个介词好象不大对，可能是in吧？） the computer and e-mail them to the manager. Obviously, those work does not need printers, small copy machines or paper shredders. Moreover, even if people work home need some office-machine to help them work, they would not buy those machines if the company refuse to provide money to buy. Of course, those people do not need to spent their own money to purchase something only benefit to（for） the company. Without pointing out such possibilities, the conclusion is highly doubtful.

Finally, even if people who work home, the arguer fails to provide the evidence to demonstrate office supply departments will become the most profitable component of their stores. Economic theory tells us, the profit is determined by supply-demand market and cost-benefit analysis. There may be so many stores to provide such machines, thus the market is competitive. Even if this department sell their office-machines well, it does not mean they would get more profit. Perhaps the cost of those machines had increase and at the same time the prices of those machines had decrease because of the competitive. All of those possibilities would diminish the profit rather than increase（increasing） them（指代不明）.

To sum up, the argument irresponsibly and rashly give out the assumption, and the evidences has not lend strong support to the conclusion, To strengthen this argument, the arguer would make a comprehensive and thorough investigation of the market of office-machine and the trend of work home. More details it provides, more reasonable it is.

总体说来，攻击点还是蛮不错的，但文章各段的逻辑性略显欠缺，应该利用连接词或序数词，把段内逻辑分层写清，感觉意思有些乱。
另外，一些修辞和语法错误尽量避免。
个人拙见，见谅~~

快乐的忧郁着UID: 2112574

谢谢楼上的，你的我已经改过了。。
向你学习