标题: 试水 argument 69 求使劲拍 [打印本页] 作者: gaocan1992 时间: 2012-5-15 10:55 标题: 试水 argument 69 求使劲拍 In this argument the arguer suggest that the building constructed by Zeta cost 30 percent more to build and Alpha’s bid promises lower construction costs. His or her company should still choose Alpha to construct the buildings. To support his view, the arguer cites that the building’s expenses for maintenance of Zeta’s last year were only half those of Alpha’s. In addition, the energy consumption of Zeta’s building has been lower than that of Alpha building every year and Zeta has a stable staffs with steady work changes. Although the arguers view seems logically, but there are several logical faults in this argument.
First the two building have been built in ten years ago. With the society improving, the two company maybe change a lot. So the cost of construction can not prove that the construction cost of Zeta is expensive nowadays.Maybe the technique of Zeta has been improved and they can use less money to build a building than Alpha. So the arguer need to offer the construction cost of the two company today.
Second, the two buildings have a different location, even if they have identical floor plans, the cost of both may be different. The argument dose not tell us the condition of two regions, we even do not know the expenses of the material used to construct the buildings. Maybe the expenses of material is more expensive in the region of the building constructed by Zeta. So Zeta need more money to build the building, thus the cost of construction is higher than that of Alpha building. Or maybe the price of land is more expensive in the region of Zeta’s building than that of Alpha building. With the different location, we can not just see the energy consumption, maybe the climate in Zeta building region is much cool and the climate in Alpha building is always fluctuating. Thus the Zeta building need less energy to maintain the building. so those evidence is unconvincing and the arguer must put other detail information.
Finally, use Zeta company dose not promise a good choice. Although Zeta has stable workforce and little employee turnover, it does not mean that the Zeta can do well and the arguer’s company can save money. The arguer does not inform us the condition of Alpha, maybe Alpha’s staffs is better and has less fluctuation. Moreover the Alpha’s bid promises lower construction costs. Maybe choosing Alpha can save more money. The arguer need show exact information to support his or her view.
To sum up, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer should tell the exact information of the two regions and more information of two companies.
作者: gaocan1992 时间: 2012-5-15 11:08
题目 69/70/115.The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of a large, highly diversified company. "Ten years ago our company had two new office buildings constructed as regional headquarters for two regions. The buildings were erected by different construction companies—Alpha and Zeta. Although the two buildings had identical floor plans, the building constructed by Zeta cost 30 percent more to build. However, that building's expenses for maintenance last year were only half those of Alpha's. In addition, the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than that of the Alpha building every year since its construction. Given these data, plus the fact that Zeta has a stable workforce with little employee turnover, we recommend using Zeta rather than Alpha for our new building project, even though Alpha's bid promises lower construction costs." 10 年以前我们公司在两个不同地区拥有两座地方办公 建筑。它们由两家建筑公司--Alpha 和Zeta 分别建造。尽 管两座建筑的平面布局基本相同，由Zeta 所建造的建筑 造价高出了30％，但去年的维护费用是由Alpha 建的楼 的50%。而且，Z 大楼建成以来的能耗每年都比Alpha 大 楼要少。这些数据，再加上Z 公司拥有稳定的员工队伍且 雇员流动性很小的事实，表明我们应该使用Z 建筑公司而 不是A 公司来建造未来的建筑工程，尽管A 的标书承诺造 价会更低。作者: gaocan1992 时间: 2012-5-15 12:37
第一次写argument，写了好久啊，求人拍啊作者: 竹林中人 时间: 2012-5-15 20:11
Although the arguers view seems logically？arguer‘s，另外，不建议用这个词。 建议你加强下每段的组织，每一段里面先写什么，再写什么，按一定的逻辑来。比如先指出题目的不合理，然后指出这种不合理的assumption，最后指明这种assumption是不合理的。