ChaseDream

标题: Argument 86 , 求拍求指导 [打印本页]

作者: radon121 时间: 2011-11-22 11:58
标题: Argument 86 , 求拍求指导

The following appeared in a memo at XYZcompany.\n”+

“When XYZ lays off employees, it pays DelanyPersonnel Firm to offer those employees assistance in creating résumés anddeveloping interviewing skills, if they so desire. Laid-off employees havebenefited greatly from Delany’s services: last year those who used Delany foundjobs much more quickly than did those who did not. Recently, it has been proposedthat we use the less expensive Walsh Personnel Firm in place of Delany. Thiswould be a mistake because eight years ago, when XYZ was using Walsh, only halfof the workers we laid off at that time found jobs within a year. Moreover,Delany is clearly superior, as evidenced by its bigger staff and larger numberof branch offices. After all, last year Delany’s clients took an average of sixmonths to find jobs, whereas Walsh’s clients took nine.\n”+

“Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed

to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or

strengthen the argument.”

In the argument, the arguer concludesthat XYZ company’s laid-off employees get benefited greatly from the servicesprovided by Delany Personnel Firm, such as assistance in creating resumes anddeveloping interviewing skills. The arguer also makes a comparison between theperformances of both the Delany Personnel Firm and Walsh Personnel Firm andtries to convince people that the Delany can do this job better. To support hisconclusion, the arguer points that, the laid-off employees who used Delanyfound jobs much more quickly than those who did not. In addition, the arguershows that Delany has a higher efficiency than Walsh. However, this argument ismissing several critical evidences to support this conclusion.

Although it is true that the employeeswho got help from the Delany found jobs more quickly, we do need extra evidenceso as to figure out whether it is benefited by the Delany. The evidence on howcompetitive those employees are is needed. It is possible that the employeeswho used Delany are more skilled and experienced. Moreover, compared to thosewho did not use Delany, these employees might be more hard-working. If theassumptions above are true, they might weaken the arguer’s point; otherwise,the arguer’s point could be convincing.
The evidence is also insufficient tosupport that Delany is a better choice than Walsh.
The argue shows an example that onlyhalf workers laid off found a job with the help from Walsh eight years ago. Thisreason is invalid as it happened long time ago from today. Now, the Walsh mighthave improved a lot and be good enough for our employees. Therefore, we needsome concrete evidences to show that if Walsh is qualified for our requirementtoday.
The arguer also fails to provide uswith the number of employees who used Walsh eight year ago. Perhaps, there wereonly one half workers who sought for help from Walsh and they all found a job. Ifso, the arguer’s opinion is weakened.
In the arguer’s point of view, theDelany is superior as it has more staff and a larger number of branch offices. However,this fact does not necessarily imply that Delany is better than Walsh. The evidenceon the working efficiency must be provided in order to support this viewpoint. Itis possible that Delany has 1000 stuff and only 500 workers find a job in ayear with its help; on the other hand, 1000 workers find a job with the helpfrom only 500 Walsh stuff every year.
The arguer also demonstrates that lastyear Delany’s clients took an average of sixmonths to find jobs, whereas Walsh’s clients took nine. First of all, we needthe evidence to shows that both Delany and Walsh are in the same condition asthey were last year in order to strengthen this conclusion. Besides, theevidence on what kind of jobs did Delany’s and Walsh’s clients found must be revealed.Maybe, the Walsh’s clients took a longer time to find a job with a higherpayment and a better welfare than Delany’s clients. In this case, theconclusion cannot be supported.
Furthermore, the arguer fails toconsider any options other than Delany and Walsh. This is a critical mistake,since some other firms could provided a better service with a lower expense.
To sumup, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysisdoes not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen theargument, the arguer would have to provide more convincing evidences asillustrated above.

作者: ppguo 时间: 2011-11-23 12:15
明儿拍。

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