ChaseDream

标题: 发上一篇刚写的AA，期待NN指点，辛苦了 [打印本页]
作者: lxw19    时间: 2010-2-19 19:29
标题: 发上一篇刚写的AA，期待NN指点，辛苦了
题目
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.”



Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

正文：



In this argument, the author claims that the Apogee Company can use centralization to improve profitability through cutting costs and maintaining better supervision. To support the conclusion, the author rested on such reasons as centralization used to help improve the profit.Under futher analyse, however, the conclusion is not as persuasive as it sounds. Throughout the argument, three serious logical fallacies can be easily found as follows.



Firstly, with a careful reexamination, it can be deduced that the author commits a post hoc fallacy. In this argument, the author argues that, since the centralization happened before the high profitability, the former caused the later. This reasoning, however, does not have any supportng details. There may also exist some other factors that lead to the high profitability. For example, the newly developed technology or the low costs of the materials may also resulted in the increased profits. Thus it is extremely perfunctory to form the cause-and-effect relationship between the cetralization and the high profit without excluding the probable factors.



Secondly, committing the fallacy of all things are equal, the author alleged that, without any convincing evidence, the whole situation of the Apogee Company will stay unchanged over the next decades. As a matter of fact, this statement is seriously flawed. Perhaps, as time pass by, the market conditions or the coorperation works of Apogee Company will change significantly and it will be favourable for a company to have field offices seperately located. The methods drawn from the current situations can not be applied to the future in such an unwarranted way. Consequently, the author can not reach the conclusion that the profitability will still increases after moving all the field offices together unless ruling out the possibilities of changing situations.



Finally, without any supportive details, the author reached the conclusion that the Apogee Company can increase the profit by cutting costs and maintaining better supervision with the help of cetralization. However, this conclusion would be judged highly suspicious. The author fails to consider this issue from all-round respects. Although centralization may has its benefits, the drawbacks can not be ignored. For instance, the cetralization will increase the transportation fees of the Apogee Company and will take much longer to have the products delivered than before when the field offices are scattered. The service quality of the company may decline. Therefore, under the help of a thorough consideration, the conclusion would be more unassailiable than ever before.



To sum up, the author fails to offer adequate evidence in support of the argument. To substantiate the reasoning, a consideraton of ruling out possibilities and likely results would be desirable.
作者: spensertracy    时间: 2010-2-20 05:11
AA不是我的强项，所以“指点”就不敢当了，我说说我对题目的看法吧。
这个题的逻辑是这样的：（1）因为N年前A公司在集中化生产的时候profit更高，所以A公司现在也应该集中化生产。（2）集中化生产提高profit的途径是降低成本和改进管理。

 我偏向那种层层递进的让步论述：
（1）首先，作者commits a fallacy of "All things are equal"  因为N年前的情况可能不同，举例不同的方面。
（2）从第二段开始，就要照顾到上一段的论述。
      即使我承认N年前的情况和现在一样（Even though I concede that...），作者还是commits a fallacy of oversimplified causal relationship in assuming that the profitability is caused by centralization. 然后就可以说correlation 和causation不同。再举几个例子，说明profit的他因。
（3）第三段再继续让步。
      即使我同意Profit是由centralization产生的，作者还是没有证据说明centralization可以”cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision“。也就是说，centralization是从其他方面提高profits。比如innovation和R&D incentives。

      你的最后一段的理解和我不同，你对原文的理解是centralization即使可以cutting cost，它还有很多负面作用。而我的理解结合了作者前面的论述：centralization可以通过cutting cost来提高利润。所以，我从centralization提高利润的不同途径来反驳作者的观点。即centralization不一定能cutting cost。
      大家可以再讨论讨论，呵呵
作者: lxw19    时间: 2010-2-20 09:48
AA不是我的强项，所以“指点”就不敢当了，我说说我对题目的看法吧。
这个题的逻辑是这样的：（1）因为N年前A公司在集中化生产的时候profit更高，所以A公司现在也应该集中化生产。（2）集中化生产提高profit的途径是降低成本和改进管理。

 我偏向那种层层递进的让步论述：
（1）首先，作者commits a fallacy of "All things are equal"  因为N年前的情况可能不同，举例不同的方面。
（2）从第二段开始，就要照顾到上一段的论述。
      即使我承认N年前的情况和现在一样（Even though I concede that...），作者还是commits a fallacy of oversimplified causal relationship in assuming that the profitability is caused by centralization. 然后就可以说correlation 和causation不同。再举几个例子，说明profit的他因。
（3）第三段再继续让步。
      即使我同意Profit是由centralization产生的，作者还是没有证据说明centralization可以”cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision“。也就是说，centralization是从其他方面提高profits。比如innovation和R&D incentives。

      你的最后一段的理解和我不同，你对原文的理解是centralization即使可以cutting cost，它还有很多负面作用。而我的理解结合了作者前面的论述：centralization可以通过cutting cost来提高利润。所以，我从centralization提高利润的不同途径来反驳作者的观点。即centralization不一定能cutting cost。
      大家可以再讨论讨论，呵呵
-- by 会员 spensertracy (2010/2/20 5:11:52)





恩，谢谢，呵呵，ls的推理感觉很舒服，顺理成章，是不是我的反驳有些独立了？三个反驳观点之间没有那么强的逻辑关系？
作者: spensertracy    时间: 2010-2-20 17:02
AA不是我的强项，所以“指点”就不敢当了，我说说我对题目的看法吧。
这个题的逻辑是这样的：（1）因为N年前A公司在集中化生产的时候profit更高，所以A公司现在也应该集中化生产。（2）集中化生产提高profit的途径是降低成本和改进管理。

 我偏向那种层层递进的让步论述：
（1）首先，作者commits a fallacy of "All things are equal"  因为N年前的情况可能不同，举例不同的方面。
（2）从第二段开始，就要照顾到上一段的论述。
      即使我承认N年前的情况和现在一样（Even though I concede that...），作者还是commits a fallacy of oversimplified causal relationship in assuming that the profitability is caused by centralization. 然后就可以说correlation 和causation不同。再举几个例子，说明profit的他因。
（3）第三段再继续让步。
      即使我同意Profit是由centralization产生的，作者还是没有证据说明centralization可以”cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision“。也就是说，centralization是从其他方面提高profits。比如innovation和R&D incentives。

      你的最后一段的理解和我不同，你对原文的理解是centralization即使可以cutting cost，它还有很多负面作用。而我的理解结合了作者前面的论述：centralization可以通过cutting cost来提高利润。所以，我从centralization提高利润的不同途径来反驳作者的观点。即centralization不一定能cutting cost。
      大家可以再讨论讨论，呵呵
-- by 会员 spensertracy (2010/2/20 5:11:52)





恩，谢谢，呵呵，ls的推理感觉很舒服，顺理成章，是不是我的反驳有些独立了？三个反驳观点之间没有那么强的逻辑关系？
-- by 会员 lxw19 (2010/2/20 9:48:44)
也不是说非要这么层层让步的写，而且有的题目也写不成这样。三个独立的反驳应该也没有什么问题。我这么写是因为有个题目就是一环扣一环的逻辑，这样反驳更加的有说服力。



欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) Powered by Discuz! X3.3