- UID
- 756204
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-5-5
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
第一次看时间写的，花了40分钟。求指点。
78) 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.
正文
思路：损失的高不说明防虫害差，可能当时虫灾高发。
损失低也不说明技术好，可能是东西不值钱，或者当时不会爆发虫灾。
就算做了很充分的调查，best mean 也不是吧鸡蛋放在一个篮子里。
Whileit may be true that the company ought to return to Buzzoff for all its pestcontrol, this vice president's memo does not make a cogent case for cooperatewith Buzzoff again. It is easy to understand vice president wants to maximizethe profits, this memo, however, is rich with holes and assumptions, and thus,not strong enough to lead to return to Buzzoff.
Citingthe value of the food destroyed by pest damage last month, the vice presidentimplies that Buzzoff Pest Control Company is not good at preventing food frompest damage. This difference, however, can be explained by other plausiblereasons. It is entirely possible that pest damage in Palm City is more severethan that in Wintervale. Perhaps other pest control companies in Palm Citycannot prevent the food from being damaged less than 50000 dollars. Or perhapsthat package of the food of the Fly-away Pest Control Company was not qualifiedand thus, caused the serious losses of the food. We just do not know. Unlessthe comparison is fully comprehensive, valid and reliable, it cannot be used toeffectively back the vice president's argument.
Additionally,the vice presidents implies that the Buzzoff Pest Control Company did a betterprevention work by emphasizing that only 10000 dollars worth of the food storedthere had been destroyed by pest damage. Though the worth of food destroyed incomparatively lower, we do not know that if the food there is valueless and theoverall value of the food there might be 10000 dollars, thus all food inBuzzoff Pest Control Company was ruined. Or perhaps the weather here is notsuitable for the pest's growth, and in fact no pest damage happened last month.Any one of a myriad of other reasons could interpret the same phenomenon.Without ruling out these reasons, the vice president cannot cling to thisevidence to support his claim.
Eventhe vice president can eliminating all possibilities mentioned above and make apersuasive, practical and professional comparison between two companies, it isnot a wise decision to put all the eggs in one basket. We do not know if thecompany can utilize other approaches to prevent the pest damage other than usea pest control company. Perhaps it can improve the package of the food, orperhaps a new warehouse can be built to store the food. The claim seems arbitrarywithout considering alternative methods.
Theoriginal thought of the vice president to low the cost of pest control is worthapplausive, however, according to current claim, this vice president is notlikely significantly persuade the board of the director to pass this decision. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-8-2 19:44:27
收藏
收藏
