Argument179 附提纲，请大家帮忙拍拍，必回拍

Archer1123UID: 206148

ARGUMENT 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."
1.        价格其实和满意度无直接联系，而且未说明GT的价格情况
2.        少数人的满意度不能反应整体情况
3.        无证据表明GT在满足特殊饮食要求上面比DF做得更好

In the memo, the author recommends that Cedar Corporation should hire Discount Food (DF) instead Good-Taste (GT) in order to improve employee satisfaction. The argument seems well-presented, however, it suffers from several serious logical flaws.

To begin with, the evidence about increasing fees and high price of GT cannot buttress author’s recommendation adequately, since the pivot is which food provider could improve employee satisfaction rather than cost down. That is to say, the price factor is not relevant to employee satisfaction. On the contrary, perhaps in order to improve customers’ satisfaction GT chooses the best material and hires the top chef to cook the delicious dishes, which is the reason of its expensive price. The author does not provide any direct and explicit data to demonstrate the satisfaction of GT is pretty low. In addition, even if the price factor will be counted in, there is no information mentioned in the argument of DF’s price. It is highly possible that DF is more expensive than GT.

Furthermore, the author’s recommendation is relied on the reflection of a few people; in fact the number is too small to represent the really collective condition. As to complaints from three employees, it is unfair to confirm that GT should responsible for it without any evidence. Possibly other conditions in the cafeteria result in the “unbearable” experience, the too high or low temperature, crowded people and the like. Additionally, merely based on three employees’ complaint cannot make a reasonable deduction that most of employee are not satisfied with GT. Again, there are parallels with the condition of DF. It is too harsh to make a decision of shift food provider after only rendering the fact that author had a delicious sample lunch. In all likelihood, the author’s tastes cannot represent tastes of other employees; accordingly, the author cannot prove that employees will be more satisfied with DT than GT. The author does not equip us with enough evidence to warrant that it is necessary and advisable to let DF supersede GT.  

Last but not least, the author points out that GT cannot accommodate employees with special dietary, however, he or she fail to convince us DF can do better than GT in this aspect. The author only provides that DF offers “a varied menu of fish and poultry”, which cannot prove DF is capable to meet the special needs of employees. Without detailed comparison between the offerings of GT and DF, it is unfair to conclude that DF is superior to GT; consequently the recommendation is hardly adopted.

In conclusion, based on what has discussed, it is obvious that author’s recommendation is ungrounded and misleading. In order to make it more creditable, the author should provide most employees are unsatisfied with GT and DF is the best alternation in that the latter could caters to those with special dietary needs and improve the collective satisfaction.

nandUID: 2179356

The author does not provide any direct and explicit data to demonstrate the satisfaction of GT is pretty low. 感觉pretty low比较口语，是不是换一个书面的比较好？

In all likelihood, the author’s tastes cannot represent 这里应该加个the吧？tastes of other employees; accordingly, the author cannot prove that employees will be more satisfied with DT than GT.

倒数2段没有说明啊，就是说怎样的信息或者比较能够说明两者好坏。看上去你的驳论也没有依据，不充实地说~~最好能够贴1-2种可能性。

下面是我的179，时间没把握好，所以结构有点不好。请指教~
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... type%26typeid%3D102

Archer1123UID: 206148

谢谢nand
1. pretty low 当时只想到两个词：very pretty，觉得very太常见了，就用了pretty，书面的？给点建议吧？
2. tastes用了复数，应该可以不用加the 了吧？
3. 写倒数第二段的时候已经完全没有时间了，写得很仓促，但是后来还是超时了，呜呜……恩，我再考虑考虑如何论证更详细点

nandUID: 2179356

我觉得还是需要加the的。你可以找个牛人问问

pretty low---->considerably low

abobibbyUID: 2174676

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."
1.        价格其实和满意度无直接联系，而且未说明GT的价格情况
2.        少数人的满意度不能反应整体情况
3.        无证据表明GT在满足特殊饮食要求上面比DF做得更好

In the memo, the author recommends that Cedar Corporation should hire Discount Food (DF) instead （of)Good-Taste (GT) in order to improve employee satisfaction. The argument seems well-presented, however, it suffers from several serious logical flaws.

To begin with, the evidence about increasing fees and high price of GT cannot buttress author’s recommendation adequately, since the pivot is which food provider could improve employee satisfaction rather than cost down. That is to say, the price factor is not relevant to employee satisfaction. (不能同意，常识而言，食物的价格和人们的满意程度是有关系的，你可以写成not equal to）On the contrary, perhaps in order to improve customers’ satisfaction GT chooses the best material and hires the top chef to cook the delicious dishes, which is the reason of its expensive price. The author does not provide any direct and explicit data to demonstrate the satisfaction of GT is pretty low(觉得这句话写在这里不好）. In addition, even if the price factor will be counted in, there is no information mentioned in the argument of DF’s price. It is highly possible that DF is more expensive than GT.

Furthermore, the author’s recommendation is relied on （嘻嘻，少见这样的说法哦）the reflection of a few people; in fact the number is too small to represent the really collective condition（这样写是容易引起争议的，要写比例）. As to complaints from three employees, it is unfair to confirm that GT should responsible for it without any evidence. Possibly other conditions in the cafeteria result in the “unbearable” experience, the too high or low temperature, crowded people and the like. Additionally, merely based on three employees’ complaint cannot make a reasonable deduction that most of employee are not satisfied with GT. Again, there are parallels with the condition of DF. It is too harsh to make a decision of shift food provider after only rendering the fact that author had a delicious sample lunch. In all likelihood, the author’s tastes cannot represent tastes of other employees; accordingly, the author cannot prove that employees will be more satisfied with DT than GT. The author does not equip us with enough evidence to warrant that it is necessary and advisable to let DF supersede GT.  

Last but not least, the author points out that GT cannot accommodate employees with special dietary, however, he or she fail to convince us DF can do better than GT in this aspect. The author only provides that DF offers “a varied menu of fish and poultry”, which cannot prove DF is capable to meet the special needs of employees. Without detailed comparison between the offerings of GT and DF, it is unfair to conclude that DF is superior to GT; consequently the recommendation is hardly adopted.

In conclusion, based on what has discussed, it is obvious that author’s recommendation is ungrounded and misleading. In order to make it more creditable, the author should provide most employees are unsatisfied with GT and DF is the best alternation in that the latter could caters to those with special dietary needs and improve the collective satisfaction.

虽然搂住说，最后时间不足，但是感觉最后三段写的很好，反而使最重要的第一段写的有些混杂。我看了字数，将近500，很了不起哦