Argument182【0906G背水一战三月小组】第八次作业 by gy2006211

gy2006211UID??2495505

题目：ARGUMENT182 - Butter has now been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. Only about 2 percent of customers have complained, indicating that 98 people out of 100 are happy with the change. Furthermore, many servers have reported that a number of customers who still ask for butter do not complain when they are given margarine instead. Clearly, either these customers cannot distinguish margarine from butter, or they use the term "butter" to refer to either butter or margarine. Thus, to avoid the expense of purchasing butter, the Happy Pancake House should extend this cost-saving change to its restaurants in the southeast and northeast as well.
字数：344
用时：00:30:00
日期：2009-3-15
下午 11:01:58
修改后 459
In the argument, the author recommends that the Happy Pancake House should use the term margarine instead of butter. To justify the recommendation, the author cites the evidence that only 2 percent of customers have complained the measure throughout the southwestern United States. In addition, the author cites the fact that many servers have reported that customers do not complain when they eat the food cooked by margarine. Further more, the author assumes that these customers can not distinguish between margarine and butter. A careful examination of this argument how groundless it is.

To begin with, the arguer unfairly assumes the evidence that only 2 percent of the customers have complained indicate that few customers do not like the food cooked with margarine. Although this is possible, however, the author neglects some other explanations of the evidence. It is possible that many customers dislike the replacement, while most of them determine to change another restaurant to eat in, hence only few of them complain to the restaurant. Unless the author can rule out other explanations of the evidence, this assumption question can not convince me.

Secondly, the fact those customers do not complain when they ask for butter and are given margine instead does not necessarily indicate that people distinguish margarine from butter. It is very likely that those people angry very much, and swear not come to here to eat any more. Since the author fails to account for this possibility, he or she can not convince me of the assertion that
these customer can not tell margarine from butter or they use the term" butter"
to refer to either butter or margarine, let alone the conclusion.

Further more, even I concede that using margarine to instead butter will not pose an effect on the customer's attitude toward the Happy Pancake House restaurants. The author falsely assumes that this measure would improve the restaurant’s profits. As is known to all, the profit is determined by the demand and cost. Even if the cost of the restaurants declines, the author provides no evidence to substantiate the income of the restaurant will increase. It is entirely possible that the restaurant would face fierce competition in the future; therefore the sales of the restaurant will decline. Without taking these factors into consideration, we can not accept the author’s conclusion that the profits of the restaurant will increase.
In conclusion, this argument, while seems well-supported at first, has several flaws as discussed above. Hence it is unacceptable and not persuasive as it stands. To better support the recommendation, the author should provide an accurate study of customer’s attitude toward the use of margarine. In addition, to further justify the recommendation, the arguer should provide more evidence about the marketing of the restaurant

yunfeiyang4everUID??2604917

In the argument, the author recommends that the Happy Pancake House should use the term margarine instead of butter. To justify the recommendation, the author cites the evidence that only 2 percent of customers have complained the measure throughout the southwestern United States. In addition, the author cites the fact that many servers have reported that customers do not complain when they eat the food cooked by margarine. Furthermore, the author assumes that these customers cannot distinguish between margarine and butter.(其实这三句可以合为一句) A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless it is.(开头作者忘了说southeast和northeast了)

To begin with, the arguer unfairly assumes the evidence that only 2 percent of the customers have complained indicates that few customers do not like the food cooked with margarine. Although this is possible, however, the author neglects some other explanations of the evidence. It is possible that many customers dislike the replacement, while most of them determine to change another restaurant to eat in, hence only few of them complain to the restaurant. Unless the author can rule out other explanations(换个词：possible) of the evidence, this assumption question cannot convince me.

Secondly, the fact those customers do not complain when they ask for butter and are given margarine instead does not necessarily indicate that people distinguish margarine from butter.(这儿貌似应该写分不清吧) It is very likely that those people angry very much, and swear not come to here to eat any more. Since the author fails to account for this possibility, he or she cannot convince me of the assertion that these customers cannot tell margarine from butter or they use the term" butter" to refer to either butter or margarine, let alone the conclusion.
(前两段作者的它因都是不抱怨是因为以后“不再去Happy Pancake House”，其实可以换一个。可能顾客觉得跟服务员说这些事情太麻烦，或者可能顾客发现人造的比天然的黄油的量大，虽然可能味道不如天然的，但还是凑合了等等)

Furthermore, even I concede that using margarine to instead butter will not pose an effect on the customer's attitude toward the Happy Pancake House restaurants. The author falsely assumes that this measure would improve the restaurant’s profits. As is known to all, the profit is determined by the demand and cost. Even if the cost of the restaurants declines, the author provides no evidence to substantiate the income of the restaurant will increase. It is entirely possible that the restaurant would face fierce competition in the future; therefore the sales of the restaurant will decline. Without taking these factors into consideration, we cannot accept the author’s conclusion that the profits of the restaurant will increase.(作者还可以攻击一下southeast part没抱怨不证明northeast part没抱怨)

In conclusion, this argument, while seems well-supported at first, has several flaws as discussed above. Hence it is unacceptable and not persuasive as it stands. To better support the recommendation, the author should provide an accurate study of customer’s attitude toward the use of margarine. In addition, to further justify the recommendation, the arguer should provide more evidence about the marketing of the restaurant.