欢迎批斗!

我拼死半小时就写这麽多,可能就3分吧?各位帮我看看有无错误,再给润色一下,我真是羞愧呀,写成这样.

拜托了!

The following appeared as part of a recommendation from the business manager of a department store.
“Local clothing stores reported that their profits decreased, on average, for the three-month period between August 1 and October 31. Stores that sell products for the home reported that, on average, their profits increased during this same period. Clearly, consumers are choosing to buy products for their homes instead of clothing. To take advantage of this trend, we should reduce the size of our clothing departments and enlarge our home furnishings and household products departments.”

In This argument, the arguer concludes that consumers are choosing to buy products for their homes instead of clothing from the facts that Local clothing stores reported that their profits decreased while stores that sell products for the home reported that their profits increased during this same period. This reasoning is based on two assumptions: one is the decreased profit in clothing store and increased profit in household product store have necessary interactions; the other is no other factors than increased profit in household store influences profit in clothing store. These assumptions, however, don’t sound persuasive.

The argument thinking increased profit in one store leads to the decreased profit in the other store depends on the fact that they occur together. But according to experience and scientific ground, two phenomenon that happen stilmuneously does not necessarily prove that they have inevitable relationship. Otherwise, we could image: Beijing is raining and it is celebrating the New Year. If the argument was right, we could consider that the celebrity leads to raining in the same analogous way, and, how ridiculous it will be!

Furthermore, we should discuss profit from different factors with which could be related : cost, sales volume, price strategy, promotion campaign et al. but the arguer neither points out these factors nor shows powerful indications that profit changes in household store is more crucial than these factors we talked on influence of profit changes in clothing store. Then, under such circumstance, it seems so arbitrary to regard that consumers are choosing to buy products for their homes instead of clothing.

To sum up, the argument is not logically convincing. If the arguer corrected the mistakes we mentioned above , the argument would have been more thorough and persuasive.

以下是引用mxcc705在2006-3-9 16:07:00的发言：

我拼死半小时就写这麽多,可能就3分吧?各位帮我看看有无错误,再给润色一下,我真是羞愧呀,写成这样.

拜托了!

The following appeared as part of a recommendation from the business manager of a department store.
“Local clothing stores reported that their profits decreased, on average, for the three-month period between August 1 and October 31. Stores that sell products for the home reported that, on average, their profits increased during this same period. Clearly, consumers are choosing to buy products for their homes instead of clothing. To take advantage of this trend, we should reduce the size of our clothing departments and enlarge our home furnishings and household products departments.”

In This argument, the arguer concludes that consumers are choosing to buy products for their homes instead of clothing from the facts that Local clothing stores reported that their profits decreased while stores that sell products for the home reported that their profits increased during this same period. This reasoning is based on two assumptions: one is the decreased profit in clothing store and increased profit in household product store have necessary interactions; the other is no other factors than increased profit in household store influences profit in clothing store. These assumptions, however, don’t sound persuasive.

The argument thinking increased profit in one store leads to the decreased profit in the other store depends on the fact that they occur together. But according to experience and scientific ground, two phenomenon that happen stilmuneously does not necessarily prove that they have inevitable relationship. Otherwise, we could image: Beijing is raining and it is celebrating the New Year. If the argument was right, we could consider that the celebrity leads to raining in the same analogous way, and, how ridiculous it will be!

Furthermore, we should discuss profit from different factors with which could be related : cost, sales volume, price strategy, promotion campaign et al. but the arguer neither points out these factors nor shows powerful indications that profit changes in household store is more crucial than these factors we talked on influence of profit changes in clothing store. Then, under such circumstance, it seems so arbitrary to regard that consumers are choosing to buy products for their homes instead of clothing. 这里可以举个反例.

To sum up, the argument is not logically convincing. If the arguer corrected the mistakes we mentioned above , the argument would have been more thorough and persuasive.

写得不错. 就这么写AA