- UID
- 752455
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-4-24
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
提纲
攻击点
1 仓库地点不同 环境不同
2 食物保存情况不同
3 价格问题
自己已经粗改一遍 谢谢大家 求拍 还有10天就考了
The argument is well presented yetfar-fetched. It lays a claim that the company shouldchoose the BPC company as their pesticide provider
. Nevertheless, the argument is ineffect definitely unreasonable due to seveal severalflaws such as the environment of two warehouses, the price of thecompanies and the food damaged in details. These logical fallacious can bediagnosed after a colse close scrutiny,albeit they may appear plausible at a cursory glance.
To begin with, a threshold problem is theargument is that the author appears to omit to provide any evidence that thesetwo warehouses are comparible comparable
insize, environment, climate, ectetc. Knownto all, food in damp and relatively high temperature envionment environmentcan bemore become liableto damaged by pest. Consequently without giving according information about thetwo places by no means can theauthor can by no means evaluatethe two companies by the limied limited evidenceand data.
In spite of the comparisonof two warehouses,
thestatement maintains ill-conceived. Another problem laysliesthatthe defernation of “preserving” the food. Ttheauthor happens to emphasize on the amount extentof food damaged by pests, rather than thefood saved reserved bythe companies respectivallyrespectively.BPC companyCompanymay be superior in this aspectpreventing pests,but the other one is totally possible to be bettertakethe lead in keeping the food fresh. ATheconclusion of whichthat choosingthe BPC is a wiser choice is dubious at best withoutmorefurthercomformconformationat best.
Even assuming that the BPC savedoverlap its competitor in restoring
morefood, a significant flaw in the proposal is thatthe price of individual these two companies inremains unavailable. Business is a functionof both revenue and expense. The authroIf the BPC charges so muchmore than the other one that even the food it protects doesnot worth the surplus price , sticking to the efficiencyof its pesticide service seems unreasonable.Aapparently,isthat case can we have to abandonit for economical reason, unluckilydeducethat chossing. the other company is ofeconomy.
In retrospect, it seems precipitous for theauthor to jump into the conclusion aba
sedon a series of problematic premises. To dismiss the specter of implausible, theauthor ought to provide cogent evidence such as the location of the twowarehouses, the overall food information of food, and the price of each of thetwo involve companies. After all, facklessfeckless attempts with a falliblemethod can be nothing but a fool's errand. Thus only by grasping the gist ofstatement can the author deduce a convincible conclusion. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-7-11 21:43:03
收藏
收藏
楼主
