- UID
- 756204
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-5-5
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
15) The following memorandum is from the business manager of Happy Pancake House restaurants.
Recently, butter has been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. This change, however, has had little impact on our customers. In fact, only about 2 percent of customers have complained, indicating that an average of 98 people out of 100 are happy with the change. Furthermore, many servers have reported that a number of customers who ask for butter do not complain when they are given margarine instead. Clearly, either these customers do not distinguish butter from margarine or they use the term 'butter' to refer to either butter or margarine.
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
In this memorandum, the manager points outthat the change of replacing butter with the margarine in the southwesternUnited States has little impact on our customers. To corroborate this claim,the manager cites that only 2 percents of the customers have complained thechange. In addition, the manager cites that the customers do not distinguishbutter from margarine or they use the term ‘butter’ to refer to the either butteror margarine. At first glance, the memorandum appears to be somehow plausible,close scrutiny of these evidences, however, reveals that it tends littlecredible support for the manager’s claim.
To begin with, citing the surveys of thecustomers, the manager concludes that the change has little impact on ourcustomers. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. Maybethe samples are not so representative to whole people, or the capacity ofsamples is too small to represent. If they just had 50 people investigated,only one of them complained about the placement, the conclusion that an averageof 98 people out of 100 is happy with the change is not cogent. The managerjust generalizes the survey without enough rationality. More persuasive,practical and professional information need to be support the conclusion of thesurvey.
Apart from that, evidence that a number ofcustomers who ask for the butter do not complain when they are given margarineinstead. Yet this might not be the truth for a variety of possible reasons.Perhaps the servers did not report the truth. If the requests of every customerare satisfied, the servers had to afford additional work. Thus they reportedthat customers hold indifferent attitude towards butter and margarine. Or it islikely that the customers did not express their real feelings. That they didnot voice it does not mean they did not hate it.
A third problem with the argument is thatit is unfair to assume that either these customers do not distinguish butterfrom margarine or they use the term ‘butter’ to refer either butter ormargarine. It is entirely possible that the customers know the differencesbetween butter and margarine, but they do not want to lose temper just withoutthe butter. Or perhaps the customers decide not to go Happy Pancake HouseRestaurant once more, thus they do not have incentives to make a complain.
To sum up, the manager fails to validatethe conclusion that the change of replacing butter with the margarine in thesouthwestern United States has little impact on our customers. To solidify theargument, the manager should provide more concrete evidence to demonstrate theconclusion. In addition, the manager would have to rule out the above mentionedpossibilities that would undermine the claim. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-5-6 09:23:14
收藏
收藏
