3.9杀G...刚刚上手写Argument，求狠狠调教

konggeshang

In this argument, the author concludes that we should return to Buzzoff for all our pest control service. To strengthen his conclusion, the author presents that the worth of food destroyed by pest damage under the service of Fly-Away Pest Control is larger than that of the Buzzoff Pest Control Company. Other additional evidence given in support of this recommendation is that we have used the Buzzoff Control Company for many years which indicates the company is worth to trust. However, the argument is ambiguous because several untenable assumptions render the argument unpersuasive as it stands.

In the first glance, the argument claims that the worth of pest damage under the service of Fly-Away Pest Control is larger than that of Buzzoff Control Company. Obviously, the arguer entirely ignores some other explanations for this condition. It is very likely that total value of food products is different in two places. A proper example is not very far to seek. The value of food products stored in Palm City is larger than in Wintervale. Thus, we cannot evaluate the loss at which warehouse is heavier. Since the arguer has failed to account for this possibility, the claim that we should return to Buzzoff for all our pest control service is completely unwarranted.

In the second place, the arguer's argument rests on the unsubstantiated assumption that even though the price charged by Fly-Away Pest Control is lower, the Buzzoff Pest Control Company will save more money. Yet, the arguer supplies neither any credible evidence nor any logical deduce to buttress this assumption. It is quite possible that the Fly-Away Pest Control will save more money. To elaborate this point clearly, let us take a look of the following typical example. Though the Fly-Away Pest Control causes more pest damage than the Buzzoff Pest Control Company, the price charged by Fly-Away Pest Control is much lower. Compare with the actual price of the two companies, the Fly-Away Pest Control saves more money. The author's reasoning is definitely flawed unless the arguer can convince me that these and other possible scenarios unlikely.

Furthermore, even assuming that the Buzzoff Pest Control Company saves more money ostensibly, we cannot ignore the potential damage. For example, perhaps, the Buzzoff Pest Control Company controls pest well, it causes some damage to the food products. The corps will further flourish under the control of the Fly-Away Pest Control. Without thinking about these alternatives, I cannot accept the arguer's recommendation that we should return to Buzzoff for all our pest control service.

In addition to these serious problems, even if the evidence turns out to support the foregoing assumptions, the arguer just simply assumes that the situations in Palm City and Wintervale are same. It is reasonable to doubt that what the arguer assumes will not happen in reality. It is just as possible that the pest situation in Palm City and Wintervale are quite different. For that matter, perhaps, the number of pest in Palm City is much larger than that of in Wintervale. Until the arguer provides further evidence to exclude all the concerns, it is unfounded to reach the conclusion involved in the argument.

In sum, the author's argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. To bolster it , the author must provide more convincingly, cite some evidence, such as the value of food products stored in two warehouse are same or the pest situation is same. To better assess the problem, I would also need to know the exact price charged by each company.