磨了近一个小时，对着模版和SY提纲写得, 不知不觉居然写了500多字，明天上战场了，好怕怕呀～
Just based on some dubious assumption and the reasoning, in this argument, the arguer concludes that KK chain will not succeed in selling ice cream in F town. To support his conclusion, he point out that F town’s cold weather means slow ice cream sales. In addition, the arguer reasons that F town with 10000 people has only one ice cream spat that it can’t be an ideal location for the KK chain. What’s more, he also assumes that since the FC’s net revenues fell by 10% last winter, the KK chain will not sale well either. At first glance, the arguer’s argument appears to be somewhat convincing. However, due to the inadequacy and partiality in the nature of evidence, further reflection reveals that the conclusion is biased and vulnerable. A careful examination would review how groundless this conclusion is.
Firstly, the arguer unfairly assumes that cold weather means slow ice cream sales. However, no evidence is state in the argument to support this assumption. A more detailed analysis would reveal that other factors far outweigh the factor on which the arguer focuses. For example, people’s taste change, or non-attractive package would also the causes of ice cream sales. Therefore, the argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.
Secondly, the fact that F town with 10000 people has only one ice cream spat doesn’t support the arguer’s conclusion that it can’t be an ideal location for the KK chain. The arguer here commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if F town with 10000 people has only one ice cream, it does not follow that the town can’t be an ideal location for the KK chain. It’s highly possible that other factors may have contributed to the event that it can’t be an ideal location for the KK chain. For instance, because of the smaller market of ice cream in F town than in other towns, it can’t be an ideal location. Accordingly, the arguer cannot confidently conclude that F town can’t be an ideal location for the KK chain.
Finally, the arguer’s conclusion depends on the questionable assumption that since the FC’s net revenues fell by 10% last winter, the KK chain will not sale well either. Nevertheless, mere last year’s revenues fell is insufficient to claim the trend will be continued. In addition, even it is the trend, It is highly doubtful that strategies drawn from FC are applicable to KK.However, differences between these two clearly outweigh the similarities, therefore making the analogy much less valid. Admittedly, FC and KK are so dissimilar that KK is unlikely to experience the same consequence if it adopts FC’s strategies.
To sum up, this argument is not persuasive at is stands. Accordingly, it is imprudent for the arguer to claim that KK chain will not succeed in selling ice cream in F town because the evidence cited in the analysis doesn’t strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more information with regard to weather affect on ice cream sales. Additionally, to strengthen the argument, he would have to more concrete evidence as well to demonstrate what’s the real reason that cause FC’s net revenues felling. Therefore, if the argument had included the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and better evaluated.
| 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2010-7-13 22:08:54
收藏
收藏
