ChaseDream

标题: AA002-请大家指教，（写了好长时间啊，郁闷呢！） [打印本页]

作者: tests 时间: 2005-5-18 10:54
标题: AA002-请大家指教，（写了好长时间啊，郁闷呢！）

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
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. 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
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.

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-5-18 11:31:40编辑过]

作者: judydongxueni 时间: 2005-5-18 12:28

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.

<>

<>

had
argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.

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.

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。

作者: tests 时间: 2005-5-19 09:41
谢谢大师指点！也知道“每个逻辑错误都略显单薄了点“，但是苦于不知如何提高，怎么办啊？是不是还需要具体的例子支撑？

作者: judydongxueni 时间: 2005-5-19 10:00

我可不是大师

可以参考一下七宗罪的模版，在精华里就有的

作者: judydongxueni 时间: 2005-5-19 16:12

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=26&ID=451&page=1

呵呵，刚才突然看到顺便给你粘过来。

作者: waterg 时间: 2005-7-19 21:36

能否请版主也帮我看看。特别是第2个in addition, 最后说到failure of business是不是有点走题了？还有，我觉得大家用的魔版都差不太多，是不是要改的面目全非才好？几乎不可能啊。象commits the fallacy of “After this, then, because of this” 改的话就怕用次不地道。最后请问，我试着几次发表新话题，都说我没权限。到底要到什么级别才能发表新话题题问啊。太感谢了！

30分钟之内我才写了292字。我改了很长时间才有这么多字的。个人觉得30分钟内能写道400字，简直是太难了！

In this argument, the author concludes that the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and that it should conduct all operations from a single location. In support of his recommendation, he cites the fact that the company was more profitable than it is today when it operated in one location. He claims that such centralization would improve profitability by cutting cost and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees. The author’s argument appears to be somehow valid, however a close examination will reveal how unconvincing this argument is for the following 3 reasons.

First, the argument commits the fallacy of “After this, then, because of this”. The author assumes the decentralization of operation locations to be the only reason to have caused profit decrease only because the Apogee Company had been more profitable before the decentralization. However, the assumption is questionable because the author provides no evidence to support this argument. On the other hand, the company's profitability could be possibly resulted from high revenue, new products, efficient operations, etc. This argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.

Second, this argument rests on a gratuitous assumption that the centralization would decrease costs without any further evidence. However, on the other hand, centralization often increases costs because of more traveling. Other possible results of centralization, such as inefficiency in operations, impacted customer relationships and possible lower revenue, deserve cost-benefit analysis and action-plan, before the author arrive a sound conclusion on cost reduction.

In addition, the author falsely analogizes the situation with the past one. A strategy succeeded in the past may not guarantee its success today. The author assumes that the centralization was the solely fact making the company profitable. Because the market, competitors, customers and Apogee’s business are changing all the time, business needs constantly look forward and make effective strategies, rather than simply use old ways of doing business.

(In addition, the author alleges that by helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees, the centralization would improve profitability. However profitability directly connected with revenue and expense rather than supervision of employees. The company might be able to improve the relations between the employees, resulting in higher motivation and more efficient operations. It is also likely that the company over-emphasizes the importance of supervision, thus damage the relations between employees and employer, resulting lower motivation and possible failure of the business.)走题？？

Therefore the conclusion is unsubstantiated. The author would have to provide detailed convincing cost-benefit analysis of the centralization plan. Besides, a discussion on how to maintain the efficiency of operations, motivations of employee, and relationships with customers will help to evaluate the argument.

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-7-19 21:47:39编辑过]

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)