- UID
- 695939
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2011-11-25
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
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 Company for all our pest-control services."
WORDS:400TIME: 00:30:00DATE: 2012-10-5 11:46:45 ------------assumption类
In this memo above, the president concludes that the best way for their company to save money is to return to Buzzoff Company for all our pest-control services. To substantiate this claim, the speaker illustrates several assumptions based on the foregoing evidences. The reason may appear plausible yet close scrutinize reveal that none of these assumptions is well-supported by the evidences.
First of all, the vice president assumes that the performance of the Buzzoff Pest-Control company is relatively better than the Fly-Away Pest-Control Company. However, there is no sufficient information to guarantee this assumption. The author cites a false analogy between the two companies. The performance of Fly-Away company in Plam City recently cannot be compared to that of Buzzoff Company in Wintervale. It is entirely possible that the situation in the two cities is quite different and the amount of pest in much less in Wintervale. Maybe the food stored in Plam City is more vulnerable to pests or the overall amount of food stored in much greater thus naturally more food was destroyed. In this case, perhaps Fly-Away Pest-Control Company is actually doing a better job. Additionally, the speaker fails to present how the Buzzoff Company performed in Plam Cities in the past few years. Perhaps the Buzzoff performs even worse compared to the Fly-Away Company.
Second, the speaker also assumes that the relative cost, which considers both the money offered to the company and the value of the destroyed food, is lower while the speaker responded inadequately to this concern. No detailed information is rendered concerning how much do the two companies actually charge. If Buzzoff company charges too high to be reasonable(comparing to the money saved through preserving more food), it would be unnecessary to return to Buzzoff for all their pest control services. Since the speaker has not adequately responded to this concern, the claim that the Buzzoff Company would be better is untenable.
Thirdly, the speaker implies that no other supplementary services would be provided by the two companies to making a reliable assessment. Perhaps Fly-Away Pest-Control Company provides compensations toward the destroyed food while the other has no such services. Therefore, the reasoning of the argument is impaired.
In conclusion, the speaker made the assessment based on a series of unconvincing assumptions. To reach the conclusion, more information listed above would be needed to provide a clear and strong support towards the recommendation. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-10-5 16:31:03
收藏
收藏
