以下是引用tests在2005-5-18 10:54:00的发言:
2. The following appeared in a memorandum from the business department of the Apogee Company.
“When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today. Therefore, the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location. Such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees.
In this argument, based on the fact that the Apogee Company was more profitable than it is presently when it had all its operations in one location, the arguer concludes that to increase profitability, the Apogee Company should close down its subsidiary offices and centralize all its operations in one location just as it did previously. At first glance, this argument seems somewhat convincing. However, after further reflection, we can find that this argument is flawed in the following aspects.
<>>
<>
First of all, this argument commits a fallacy of “all things are equal”. The circumstances are changing constantly, and the present conditions of the Apogee Company are not inevitably equal to those of it in the past. Just simply conduct all the Apogee Company’s operations from a single location as it did previously can not necessarily be beneficial to its profitability. In addition, under the trend of mass production and distribution, such centralization is not a effective way to improve profitability. >
<>
Secondly, the arguer points out that the reason why the Apogee Company was more profitable than it is today is that it had all its operations in one location. However, the arguer fails to provide sufficient information to support this point. In fact, this is not necessarily the case. For example, it is more likely that the Apogee Company made more R&D about its products and processes than it does presently, therefore, the innovation has prompted the company’s profitability. Consequently, this
had argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.>
<>
Thirdly, using the case of the Apogee Company, the arguer concludes that such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees. As a matter of fact, one case is unavoidably unsounded to establish a general conclusion.
个人认为这句话犯了一个“strawman”的逻辑错误。因为作者并没有把这个个案推广啊
The statistics from the past are not necessarily representative of status quo or a good indicator of future trends. Therefore, this statement is gratuitous unless the arguer presents additional information to support his or her viewpoint. >
In sum, this argument ignores the changing background conditions of the Apogee Company and commits a fallacy of “all things are equal”. In addition, the arguer fails to provide adequate justification for that such centralization is essential to improve
which are
profitability. As it stands, the reasoning does not constitute a logical argument in favor of the recommendation of centralization. To strengthen this argument, the arguer should have to analyse the current background conditions of the Apogee Company and present evidence to prove that centralization is the key to profitability.
写的挺好了,开始记时吧。再就是每个逻辑错误都略显单薄了点。
|