argument179 G-89-互助社-24日 （已用WORD修改红绿线，高频，请各位高手拍砖、交流）

fantasianosUID：207837

179.The following is a memorandum written by the director of personnel to the president of the Cedar Corporation.
'It would be a mistake to rehire the Good-Taste Company to supply the food in our employee cafeteria next year. It is the second most expensive caterer in the city. In addition, its prices have risen in each of the last three years, and it refuses to provide meals for people on special diets. Just last month three employees complained to me that they no longer eat in the cafeteria because they find the experience 'unbearable.' Our company should instead hire Discount Foods. Discount is a family-owned local company and it offers a varied menu of fish and poultry. I recently tasted a sample lunch at one of the many companies that Discount serves and it was delicious—an indication that hiring Discount will lead to improved employee satisfaction.'

The author asserts in the memorandum that instead of the Good-Taste Company (GT for short), the company should hire Discount Foods (DF for short), on the ground of a list of facts. These facts, however, may not serve the purpose competently, because of a series of serious logic fallacies.

First, what the author utilized as evidence to prove the incompetence of GT are the high prize, no special meals provided and some complaints, which all fail in fulfilling the task. For one thing, generally speaking, the prize depends on all aspects of factors, including the expenses on raw materials, quality of foods as well as services and so forth. On the contrary of the author's aim, the second highest prize may just show GT's superiority to most other counterparts. For another thing, not all special meals should be served concerning to the cafeteria's condition, consumer's situation and prize or such things. Failure in serving special foods does not necessarily mean the service of GT is inferior to those serving them; instead, it can be the case that it is because of the customer's health condition why GT is unwilling to provide certain foods, lest the customer could be sick. For the third thing, every thing has advantages and disadvantages, justifying the existence of both compliments and complaints. More precisely, hardly can any conclusion about GT's foods and services be drawn before the proportion of consumers complaining about it is made clear, or more detailed information about the three complaints is available. What should be paid more attention is that when one is making a complaint, the person is likely to exaggerate the fact or facts, in order to receive more attention and salvation, which lends possibility of exaggeration to the declared "unbearable" experience.

Secondly, it is a whole new choice--DF--that recommended by the author as an alternative, whose condition and situation, though superficially explained sufficiently, has actually not undergone a complete or full comparison with GT's. For example, only has the author expressed that DF offers a varies menu of fish and poultry, which leave an open question whether other dishes or drinks are provided, such as beef, vegetable and coffee, etc. If DF merely supplies fish and poultry while GT serves almost all sorts of foods and drinks, consumers may still prefer GT to DF.

Last but not least, the author commit hast generalization articulating that DF's foods are delicious. It well-known that a single experience could not represent for the holistic situation, which is equal to say in this essay that simply a sample delicious dish does not suggest all the other dishes are adorable. Similarly, when the author cites the three complaints as evidence, the same drawback is committed.

As a conclusion, the reasoning is dubious. （时间关系，最后来不及写长结尾；而且看孙远的书说：结尾不如充分的分析重要，是吗？）

fantasianosUID：207837

up!

polymathUID：179557

顶一个先！加油．