argument117 同主题

zhaoll99UID：2102916

Merely depended on a series of unwarranted assumptions and dubious evidence, the arguer comes to conclusion that office-supply departments in Valu-Mart will become the most profitable one. Although it is credible on the surface, closer examination will reveal the hidden flaws in this argument.

To begin with, the reliability of survey is open to doubt. The arguer indicates nothing about how many people are involved in the study and what portion of the people surveyed actually responded. It is entirely possible that few people attend the survey and even fewer people response to the survey. The lower the portion, the less reliable the results of the survey. Moreover, the arguer provides no solid evidence to support that the survey’s respondents are representative of overall people. We know nothing about the age, backgrounds, vocation of the people surveyed. Perhaps most of respondents are the young people, who have more enthusiastic toward the work and more longing for studying the new knowledge. As a result they will bring some of their work home in order to grasp more knowledge. Or perhaps the respondents are the people who have low education level and have a difficulty in being competent for the challenging work unless they do not pay more time and energy after work at home. If these are the case, the result of survey is unreliable and will turn out to carry little significance to represent a common attitude toward this issue.

Even if the result of survey is reliable, the assumption that Valu-Mart will increase the stock of home office machines and suppliers seems unwarranted. The argument provides no evidence about the demand toward office stationery. Taking more work home does not mean the increasing demand to office suppliers and machines. Perhaps people only need computer and Internet to work at home rather than office stationeries such as printers, small copy machines, paper shredders, and fax machines and so on. Or perhaps the people might buy them from another company with lower price, better service and better qualities. As a result, uncorrected decisions may lead to overstocks in the Valu-Mart that will bring about the fund turnover difficulties. Without ruling out these possibilities, assumption is unreasonable and unjust.

Even if Valu-Mart increasing the sales in stocks of home office machines and suppliers, the assumption that office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of our stores is unwarranted. Common senses and experiences tell us that there are many factors to have an impact on the profit, such as costs, price, distribution and so on. It is arbitrary to claim that increasing sales will bring office-supply departments more profits. Perhaps excessive stocks will enhance the cost of office stationery. The traffic fees will be boosted because of excessive stocks. The advertising might be more than before in order to make people learn their office products. Without carefully studying and considering these and other possible explanation, the assumption the company will be make profit is open to doubt.

To sum up, without enough evidence to support the argument, the conclusion is unreasonable.

glassfrogUID：170569

Merely depended on a series of unwarranted assumptions and dubious evidence, the arguer comes to conclusion that office-supply departments in Valu-Mart will become the most profitable one. Although it is credible on the surface, (a) closer examination will reveal the hidden flaws in this argument.

To begin with, the reliability of survey is open to doubt. The arguer indicates nothing about how many people are involved in the study and what portion of the people surveyed actually responded. It is entirely possible that few people attend the survey and even fewer people response to the survey. The lower the portion (is), the less reliable the results of the survey (will be). Moreover, the arguer provides no solid evidence to support that the survey’s respondents are representative of overall people. We know nothing about the age, backgrounds, vocation of the people surveyed. Perhaps most of respondents are the young people, who have more enthusiastic(enthusiasm) toward the work and more longing for studying the new knowledge. As a result they will bring some of their work home in order to grasp more knowledge(are so diligent that they bring back the works for extra time to learn). Or perhaps the respondents are the people who have low education level and have a difficulty in being(Replace: less) competent for the challenging work unless they do not(DELETE) pay more time and energy(effort) after work at home(DELETE). If these are the case, the result of survey is unreliable and will turn out to carry little significance to represent a common attitude toward this issue.

Even if the result of survey is reliable, the assumption that Valu-Mart will increase the stock of home office machines and suppliers seems unwarranted(it is better to use the ‘it is adj. that …’). The argument provides no evidence about the demand toward office stationery. Taking more work home does not mean the increasing demand to office suppliers and machines. Perhaps people only need computer and Internet to work at home rather than office stationeries such as printers, small copy machines, paper shredders, and fax machines and so on. Or perhaps the people might buy them from another company with lower price, better service and better qualities. As a result, uncorrected decisions may lead to overstocks in the Valu-Mart that will bring about the fund turnover difficulties. Without ruling out these possibilities, assumption is unreasonable and unjust(unjustified).

Even if Valu-Mart increasing the sales in stocks of home office machines and suppliers, the assumption that office-supply departments will become the most profitable component of our stores is unwarranted. (too long a subject)Common senses and experiences tell us that there are many factors to have an impact on the profit, such as costs, price, distribution and so on. It is arbitrary to claim that increasing sales will bring office-supply departments more profits. Perhaps excessive stocks will enhance the cost of office stationery. The traffic fees will be boosted because of excessive stocks. The advertising might be more than before in order to make people learn their office products(as well). Without carefully studying and considering these and other possible explanation, the assumption the company will be make(making) profit is open to doubt.

To sum up, without enough evidence to support the argument, the conclusion is unreasonable.(I guess you can provide some suggestions on how to perfect the reasoning of the arguer.)

[ Last edited by glassfrog on 2005-9-11 at 11:11 ]