- UID
- 729208
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-2-28
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
78. 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 mouth 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 Winrtervale, 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 pest means of saving money is to return to Buzzoff for all our pest control services. “
(Q1, Q3, Q2, Q7)
In this memo the vice president of a food distribution company with food storage warehouse in several cities recommends that the Fly-Away should be supplanted by the Buzzoff despite whose charge is relatively higher. To support this recommendation the vice president cites the fact during last month that the worth of food destroyed by pest in Palm City where Fly-Away serviced is twice as much as that in Winrtervale where Buzzoff serviced. Although this argument might seem reasonable at first glance, close scrutiny of the supporting evidence reveals that it lends little credible support to the vice president’s claim.
First of all, it is only “last month” and only “in Palm City” that Fly-Away provides pest control services. Perhaps not enough time has passed to evaluate the effectiveness of Fly-Away in pest control service-especially if last month is during a season of the year when pest damage is severe. In addition, the greater loss of food stored does not necessarily indicates the inefficiency of Fly-Away. Since the vice president does not provide any evidence concerning the respectively total worth of food in watehouses in Palm and Winrtervale, or the percentage of loss , it is too hasty for us to draw the conclusion that Fly-Away is inferior to Buzzoff.
Even if the condition of pest damage in Palm City is much more worse than that in Winrtervale, the vice president’s assertion that Buzzoff is much more qualified in pest control to be more worthwhile to sign a contract is unwarranted. It is entirely possible that Palm City is more vulnerable to the attack of pest destroy. Since the vice president provides no evidence referred to the difference between Palm City and Winrtervale-such as location, climate, pest species and even their destructive power, all of which are sufficiently valid to subvert the literally logic deduction of vice president. Without ruling out all of these alternative explanation for serious condition in Palm, I could hardly be convinced by the vice president that Buzzoff is much more competitive-let alone to supplant Fly-Away.
Ultimately, even though vice president can substantiate the foregoing assumptions, guarantee of money-saving following the practice of the replacement of Fly-Away by Buzzoff is unjustified. The vice president misconstrues the “low loss” and “less expense”. In other words, even if the loss of food stored has been reduced as the outgrowth of the recommendation, it is totally possible that the decrease of loss is not adequate to offset the increase of charge of Buzzoff. If it were the case, than the supplant practice will have to nothing with gaining more profit.
In sum, the argument is wholly unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it the vice president should reason more convincingly, cite more detailed evidence concerning the difference between these two cities that may also interfere the pest damage and concerning specific charge of two companies. In the meantime, the vice president should give more time for Fly-Away to test themselves.
评个分吧 |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-3-26 23:04:45
收藏
收藏
