Argument41【0706G－~4而后生~小组】第6次作业 by nap 有拍必回

napUID: 196976

TOPIC: ARGUMENT41 - The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a food-distribution company with food-storage warehouses in several cities.

"Recently we signed a contract with The Fly-Away Pest-Control Company to provide pest-control services at our fast-food warehouse in Palm City, but last month we discovered that over $20,000 worth of food there had been destroyed by pest damage. Meanwhile, the Buzzoff Pest-Control Company, which we have used for many years, continued to service our warehouse in Wintervale, and last month only $10,000 worth of the food stored there had been destroyed by pest damage. Even though the price charged by Fly-Away is considerably lower, our best means of saving money is to return to Buzzoff Company for all our pest-control services."
WORDS: 418->498          TIME: 0:27:03          DATE: 2007-3-22 Updated!

The author of the statement argues that the food-distribution company should return to Buzzoff Company for their pest-control services. To support the statement, the author compares the damage of his company with Wintervale. Additionally the author mentions that they will save money after doing this. However, the vice president should not make such decision since there are some flaws in it.

The author fails to provide evidences to show that the conditions of two warehouses are the same. The vice president argues that the damages in Palm city and in Wintervale are different for the damage in his is $20,000 and in Wintervale is $10,000. However, the author fails to rule out other factors that affect the damage in different places. It is quite possible that in Wintervale because of many animals such as bets that ate pests the number of pests fell. Or the numbers in both sites are the same but because of the natural conditions such as the moisture and the heat the pesticide work differently in these places. Thus, the possible reason for the more damage in author’s warehouse is that weather is too moist the pesticide did not work sufficiently.

In addition, the author does not convince us by merely citing data within a limit time. The common sense of stat tells us that only one month’s survey does not say anything. Maybe in the past the damage is very little and in contrast only during the last month the condition worsened because of some factors such as that weather is quite well for pests to proliferate or the quality of the pesticide in that time was poor while in other times it is good. Unless the author cites more data we can not believe that the Fly-Away’s service is poor.

Finally, the author said that if they want to save money and solve the problem, they should use Buzzoff Pest-Control Company's service. However, as we know that there may be many real and potential reasons that may lead to the damage and thus resorting to Buzzoff may not be a good idea. The author only cites the data of pest damage but do not cite other damage. It is fairly possible that the Buzzoff may bring other damage. For example, the Buzzoff's pesticide may damage the food's quality and this may also cost the author's company a lot. On the other hand the author does not consider the potential reputation problems. Maybe Buzzoff's reputation is quite bad, for example its pesticide production once damage the environment, and when the consumers find that the company use Buzzoff they will be unlikely to buy goods from the customer of Buzzoff.

In sum, the author does not provide sufficient evidence and data to convince us that the decision is good. To strengthen the decision, the author should compare the conditions in his company and in Wintervale. Besides the author should survey other potential harmful damage and consider the whole economic matter of using Buzzoff's service.

:(这几天都不在状态，感觉写得不太好，请大家修改。
有谁能帮我挑一下语言的错误？谢谢:)

[ 本帖最后由 nap 于 2007-3-26 17:31 编辑 ]

hezhifei2008UID: 2233976

The author of the statement argues that the food-distribution company should return to Buzzoff Company for their pest-control services. To support the statement, the author compares the damage of his company andwithWintervale. Additionally the author mentions that they will save money after doing this. However, the vice president should not make such decision since there are some flaws in it.

The author fails to provide evidences to show that the conditions of two warehouses are the same. The vice president argues that the damage in his company and Wintervale are different for the damage in his is $20,000 and in Wintervale is $10,000. However, the author fails to rule out other factors that affect the damage in different places. It is quite possible that in Wintervale because there were这用现在时，你觉得怎么样 many animals such as bets that ate pests and then the number of pests fell. Or the numbers in both sites are the same but because of the natural conditions such as the moisture and the heat the pesticide work differently in these places. Thus, the possible reason for the more damage in author’s warehouse is that weather is too moist the pesticide did not work sufficiently.这两个仓库都是一个公司的，地点不同而已

In addition, the author does not convince us by merely citing data within a limit time. The common sense of stat tells us that only one month’s survey does not say anything. Maybe in the past the damage is very little and in contrast during the last month the condition worsened because of some factors such as that weather is quite well for pests to proliferate or the quality of the pesticide in that time was poor while in other times it is good杀虫剂的质量会变吗，还是应该说效果不同？. Unless the author cites more data we can not believe that the Fly-Away’s service is poor until the author cites other months’ data.until后这句不舒服，去掉吧

Finally, the author said that if they want to save money and solve the problem, they should use Buzzoff Pest-Control Company's service. However, as we know that there may be many real and potential reasons that may lead to the damage and resorting to Buzzoff may没看懂这个that从句好像两个谓语啊 not be a good idea. The author only cites the data of pest damage but do not cite other damage. It is fairly possible that the Buzzoff may bring other damage. For example, the Buzzoff's pesticide may damage the food's quality and this may also cost the author's company a lot. On the other hand the author does not consider the potential reputation problems. Maybe Buzzoff's reputation is quite bad, for example its pesticide production once damage the environment, and when the consumers find that the company use Buzzoff they will be unlikely to buy goods from the customer of Buzzoff.

In sum, the author does not provide sufficient evidence and data to convince us that the decision is good. To strengthen the decision, the author should compare the conditions in his company and in Wintervale. Besides the author should survey other potential harmful damage and consider the whole economic matter of using Buzzoff's service.

insideUID: 2303230

嗯。。就提一点哈

Maybe in the past the damage is very little
这点貌似不太合乎提议，因为题目说和FC签约是recently，你可以说或许上一家公司留下了个烂摊子，但是你不太好说以前的损失很小。