argument241 [TSUBASA] by snail8843

snail8843UID：2516929

Merely based on insufficient evidence and suspicious assumptions, the author concludes that Delany Personnel Firm (DPF) is better than Walsh Personnel Firm (WPF). To support the conclusion, the author points out the result of survey of last year including a comparison of time of finding job between the clients of DPF and those who did not use DPF to show that the clients of DPF have benefited from DPF. In addition, the author cites the result of a study of eight years ago to illustrate that WPF is inferior to DPF.

First of all, the fact that those who used DPF found jobs much more quickly than did those who did not is insufficient to substantiate DPF is effective in helping laid-off employees find jobs. Whether a person find a good job is not properly judged by the time of finding a job. The author fails to provide specific information about salary, working position, working condition. Perhaps the jobs founded by the clients of DPF are characterized by low salary, low position and poor condition of working. So, without providing such information, I cannot be conceived that DPF authentically play a role in helping laid-off employees finding jobs.

Secondly, even if those employees indeed have find a better job than those who did not use DPF, the author fails to establish a casual relationship between DPF and the good jobs. It is entirely possible that the different result of job between two kinds of employees is attributable to some other factors rather than DPF. Perhaps the former employees are more professional and competitive than the later ones. Or perhaps they have a stronger desire to find jobs than the later ones. Without ruling out these possibilities, the casual relationship cannot be well established.

Finally, the author wrongly assumes that WPF is inferior to DPF referring to the result of finding jobs eight years ago. Firstly, what percent of the laid-off employees drew support from WPF? Perhaps only half of the laid-off employees refer themselves to WPF; consequently, all of them found jobs within a year while all of the other employees who did not look to WPF failed to find jobs. Secondly, even if the foregoing assumption can be proved, perhaps the poor percent is ascribed to some other factors. For example, perhaps at that time unemployment rate was high in that the country faced an economic slump. As a result, the percent of DPF was lower than that of WPF. If so, the author cannot conclude that WPF is inferior to DPF in helping those employees find jobs.

In sum, the author's conclusion is unpersuasive in some aspects. In order to strengthen the conclusion, the author must provide me specific information to substantiate that the employees who used DPF really find better jobs than those who did not use DPF and this result is attributable to the function of DPF rather than some other factors. In addition, the author must provide me sufficient evidence to conceive me that WPF is ineffective in helping find a job by comparison with DPF.

zyp8756UID：2594775

下次把题目一起粘过来吧~影响批改进程

Merely based on insufficient evidence and suspicious assumptions, the author concludes that Delany Personnel Firm (DPF) is better than Walsh Personnel Firm (WPF). To support the conclusion, the author points out the result of survey of last year including a comparison of time of finding job between the clients of DPF and those who did not use DPF to show that the clients of DPF have benefited from DPF. In addition, the author cites the result of a study of eight years ago to illustrate that WPF is inferior to DPF. 【没说作者错了啊 是何用意？】

First of all, the fact that those who used DPF found jobs much more quickly than did those who did not【这块怎么这么绕啊？！those who are insufficient就行吧】 is insufficient to substantiate DPF is effective in helping laid-off employees find jobs. Whether a person find a good job is not properly judged by the time of finding a job. The author fails to provide specific information about salary, working position, working condition. Perhaps the jobs founded by the clients of DPF are characterized by low salary, low position and poor condition of working. So, without providing such information, I cannot be conceived that DPF authentically play【plays】 a role in helping laid-off employees finding【find】 jobs.

Secondly, even if those employees indeed have find a better job than those who did not use DPF, the author fails to establish a casual relationship between DPF and the good jobs. It is entirely possible that the different result of job between two kinds of employees is attributable to some other factors rather than DPF【好句子】. Perhaps the former employees are more professional and competitive than the later ones【不知其所云】. Or perhaps they have a stronger desire to find jobs than the later ones. Without ruling out these possibilities, the casual relationship cannot be well established.

Finally, the author wrongly assumes that WPF is inferior to DPF referring to the result of finding jobs eight years ago【这个错误与上文因果关系建立的不好】. Firstly, what percent of the laid-off employees drew【to】 support from WPF? Perhaps only half of the laid-off employees refer themselves to WPF; consequently, all of them found jobs within a year while all of the other employees who did not look to【look to 是照顾的意思】 WPF failed to find jobs【但是和d公司的对比没有体现出来~你的这个例子确实体现了W公司的牛X 但是可能D公司的效果更好只是没有被提出来 这个反例不是很好 或者说得不是特别充分啊】. Secondly, even if the foregoing assumption can be proved【被证明是对还是错啊】, perhaps the poor percent is ascribed to some other factors【这句之前出现过类似的 能不能有其他举行替换呢 】. For example, perhaps【例如后面就不要出现可能了 例如你汉语可以说一下 例如，可能。。。有点别扭吧】 at that time unemployment rate was high in that the country faced【facing】 an economic slump. As a result, the percent of DPF was lower than that of WPF. If so, the author cannot conclude that WPF is inferior to DPF in helping those employees find jobs【这点和上面那点还有些重复】.

In sum, the author's conclusion is unpersuasive in some aspects. In order to strengthen the conclusion, the author must provide me【去掉可以】 specific information to substantiate that the employees who used DPF really find【found小语法错误不少啊】 better jobs than those who did not use DPF and this result is attributable to the function of DPF rather than some other factors. In addition, the author must provide me sufficient evidence to conceive me that WPF is ineffective in helping find a job by comparison with DPF.【结尾简介一些最好 中间的论证和反例要加强啊~】就说这些 加油~~~~~~