ChaseDream

标题: argument 78 能人指教 [打印本页]

作者: biolady 时间: 2012-3-13 01:32
标题: argument 78 能人指教
题目：
The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a food distribution company with food storage warehouses in several cities.
"Recently, we signed a contract with the Fly-Away Pest Control Company to provide pest control services at our fast-food warehouse in Palm City, but last month we discovered that over $20,000 worth of food there had been destroyed by pest damage. Meanwhile, the Buzzoff Pest Control Company, which we have used for many years, continued to service our warehouse in Wintervale, and last month only $10,000 worth of the food stored there had been destroyed by pest damage. Even though the price charged by Fly-Away is considerably lower, our best means of saving money is to return to Buzzoff for all our pest control services."
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.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.

提纲：
1.作者首先错误假设了Palm City 和Wintervale的环境相同，因为并没有证据表明这一结论。
2.即便是环境相同，文中两地食物损失只提供了绝对值，没有提相对值，属于调查类错误。因此，用这样的数据来评判那个公司更好是不可靠的。举例：Wintervale的食物损失绝对值虽然小，但如果仓库食物总价值就小，损失比例就很大，反而证明Buzzoff公司的杀虫效果不好。相对，若Palm City 仓库很大，损失比例小的话，杀虫效果还是可以的。
以上无法证明Buzzoff isbetter
3.Buzzoff不一定节约费用：
首先，虽然它在Wintervale收费低，可能是因为仓库小，害虫少，好管理，也许到了其他地区，仓库大的话，收费也会增加。这也许是Fly-Away收费贵的原因。如果让Buzzoff接管所有仓库，可能费用也会很高。
其次，收费低可能跟杀虫剂的质量低有关。毒性大，不环保的杀虫剂可能更便宜，但可能会污染仓库食物，污染周边环境。如果影响周围居民的健康，导致赔偿，不仅没省钱反而赔钱。
综上所述，这篇argument并不具有说服力。

全文：
In this argument, the author concludes that the food distribution company's best means of saving money is to return to Buzzoff for all their pest control services. To support this conclusion, the author points out that the worth of food destroyed by pest damage is larger in Palm City warehouse controlled by Fly-Away Company than that in Wintervale warehouse controlled by Buzzoff Company. Further more, the arguer mention that the price charged by Buzzoff Company is considerably lower. However, these all do not constitute a logical argument, in favor of its conclusion, and fail to provide convincing evidence making this argument invulnerable.

First, the author assumes that the environment conditions in Palm City and Wintervale are similar. But there are no evidence showing this assumption. In Palm City, there might be more pest species damaging food and are more difficult to control. So it may be reasonable that lost in Palm City showed in the survey is larger.

Nevertheless, even though the environment is almost same in both cities, the assessment of food damage can not be a strong evidence for balancing which company is better. The argument tells us the worth of food damaged in two cities

20,000 in Palm City and $10,000 in Wintervale. However, the speaker fails to indicate the percentage of lost. So there 's possibility that the damage in Wintervale is in fact more serious than that in Palm City. Taking an example, there are totally $ 30,000 worth of food stored in Wintervale, and $ 40,000 worth of food in Palm City. We can calculate the former percentage of food destroyed by pest is 1/3, while the latter one is 1/4. There are more severe food damage in Wintervale. So using absolute number as evidence is far too vague to be meaningful, and may even result in false conclusion that Buzzoff works better than Fly-Away. Unless the survey is fully valid and reliable, it can not be used to effectively back the author's argument.

Second, the lower price charged by Buzzoff in Wintervale may not reflect the condition of price charging in other areas. For instance, charging standard of Buzzoff Company depends on dimension of the warehouse in one city. In Wintervale, the warehouse happens to be small and is easier to deal with, so the price is lower. But in Palm City, the warehouse is bigger and controlling work demands more pesticide or supervise, so the price is higher for cost compensation, just like what Fly-Away Company did in Palm City.

In addition, lower price may result from other reasons, such as the quality of pesticide or chemicals applied in pest control. The Fly-Away Company may use a safer but relatively expensive pesticide to guarantee no food polluted during their work, while the Buzzoff Company preferred cheaper but poisonous chemicals for killing pest in order to diminish cost, which may threaten food safety. Besides, such chemicals may also bring pollution to the environment around the warehouse, harming local residents' healths, causing the food company to compensate for pollution instead of saving their money.Consequently, the author does not show an effective evidence to demonstrate that returning to Buzzoff Company is the best way of saving money.From all above, it is clear to see that the author 's argument is not persuasive enough.

作者: 普渡哥 时间: 2012-3-13 11:13
结尾这样写肯定会减分的。

作者: 竹林中人 时间: 2012-3-13 12:34
第二段貌似你不止说了一点，建议写成两段。。
结尾这样写不好，要么不要，要么写得概括点，不要一句话就没了

作者: biolady 时间: 2012-3-13 13:57
OK

作者: biolady 时间: 2012-3-13 16:52
按照版主们的建议，我把作文小改动了一下，一开始写的结尾确实太短，还好有斑竹们的提醒

作者: jameszhm 时间: 2012-3-15 22:00

按照版主们的建议，我把作文小改动了一下，一开始写的结尾确实太短，还好有斑竹们的提醒

-- by 会员 biolady (2012/3/13 16:52:40)

记得贴上提纲这样方便大家评论。

作者: biolady 时间: 2012-3-19 23:44
提纲写了，大家还有别的想法吗

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