AAA007 感谢小女公子的文章欢迎大家继续讨论

A7. The following is a memorandum to the president of the EZ-Manufacturing Company from the manager of cafeteria services.

“Offering pizza in our cafeteria has proved extremely profitable. To further increase our profits from pizza sales, we should switch to PDQ Pizzeria to supply our pizza. PDQ pizza was twice voted the ‘best pizza’ in the neighboring town of Hamiltonia in on-line surveys of Hamiltonia Gazette readers. The PDQ branch in our town currently sells pizza for only slightly more than our cafeteria does and has begun offering free daily delivery. Switching to PDQ pizza will clearly improve satisfaction with our cafeteria and hence increase the cafeteria’s profits.”

According to the argument, the author recommends that the cafeteria should offer PDQ pizza to further profitability. The assumption underlying the argument is that pizza is responsible for the profit increase of the cafeteria. To buttress his conclusion, the author quotes on-line survey result showing people favor PDQ pizza. Moreover, the author claims that PDQ is highly popular in the neighboring town. The author's reasoning is biased for the following reasons.

To begin with, the author illogically assumes that offering pizza in the cafeteria causes profit increase. No information is offered to substantiate the crucial assumption. Many other factors, however, may help to explain the phenomenon. For example, the profit may increase because of the successful advertising strategy. Or, it is possible that people like this cafeteria because of its superior service. Any of the scenarios, is true, would invalidate the easy assumption offered.

Second, the author commits the fallacy of "all things equal". The success of PDQ in the neighboring town does not necessarily indicate a triumph in this town, because the two towns are not analogous. Virtually, the differences of the two towns apparently outweigh the similarities. It is possible that people in this town do not favor pizza. Or it is possible that PDQ pizza in this town is not well-known. Neglecting these potentialities, the author reaches an unwarranted conclusion.

Last but not lease, the author quotes the result of a on-line survey to solidify his claim that people PDQ is popular among all people. The representativeness of the survey, however, is open to doubt because the author fails to provide sufficient information to convince us that the respondents represents all people. If the people who always surf online are people more likely to eat PDQ pizza, the validity of the survey will be undermined. Besides, the author offers no information about the methodology of the survey. If the respondents are not credible, or if they are not selected randomly from the spectrum, the attitude reflected in the survey would be unrepresentative. These potential methodology problems, if true, would greatly undermine the credibility of the survey.

To sum up, it is unwise for a prudent manager to follow the proposal solely on the basis of the analysis presented above. To substantiate his recommendation, the author has to offer more concrete date to convince us that offering pizza will surely stimulate the profits. Moreover, I will still highly suspect the credibility of the conclusion unless the author finally rule out all the potentialities analyzed above

挺好的拉。语法已经没有什么大问题了，粘到word里面改一下就可以了。估计都是马虎造成的。注意一下逻辑方面的表达。例如不是这两个小镇不可以类比而是没有证据支持这两个小镇可以类比。可以参考一下七宗罪的表达。

谢谢ｊｕｄｙ你的鼓励是我每天硬着头皮写作文的最大动力～～～

明天开始贴Ａｉ……

1There is no causal relationship between the increase of profit and the offering of pizza.

2The author commits a fallacy of "all things are equal".

3The online surveys are base-biased thus doubtful.

1。fallacy analogy between differeent towns.

2. on-line survy is uncompelling. participators are limited readers of sth

3.switch to PDQ increase the cost of dilivery but can not highly increase the sales of PDQ.

由于不看这句话的时候已经可以找到三个逻辑错误我就把它给忽略了。确实挺奇怪的。

翻译：PDQ在我们镇的分支的pizza销售量只比我们咖啡店多一点。

其中的意思貌似是说他们的批萨好吃但是营销上不如我们所以应该他们做供应商我们卖。