马上要考了，写了几篇练手，半个小时才400个字，是否应该够了？AA 2
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.”
The author of argument claims that centralization of Apogee Company would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees. To support this conclusion, the author points out that when Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it gains more profit than it did today. In addition, the author reasons that if they close down it's field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location, they will be more profitable. As first glance, the author’s argument appears to be somewhat appealing, but close scrutiny reveals that evidence cited in this analysis does not lend strong support to what the author maintains. The argument is problematic for following reasons.
In the first place, the author reasons that the centralization is the cause of its success to be more profitable. The only evidence cited in the argument is that the two things happened coincidently and that could not substantiate that they have the causal relationship, in which cases, the reasoning is flawed in depending on this unfair assumption.
In the second place, granted that the success in Apogee Company is due to the centralization, this strategy would not success necessarily result in the same success today, because changes occur every minute. The argument does not provide evidence about the time that the success happened. In order to substantiate that the strategy will be useful, we need more evidence about the time.
In the third place, the author ignores other ways to be succeed, perhaps the employees 's hard work, the location of the company and the progess of working will also benefit the company. Even one of those will be more efficient for the company to reach the goal, in which cases, the author's reasoning would not seem to be appealing any more.
In conclusion, the author fails to substantiate the claim that the centralization will benefit the company. As it stands, the reasoning does not constitute logical argument in favor of the recommendation. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide evidence to prove the centralization is the only cause of the success. To better assess the argument, we need additional detailed information about how recently the success by using this strategy took place, so that we can establish the conclusion whether centralization will be the efficient way to improve the company.
请各位提提意见！！
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |