Argument 78 求拍！

雨霖林

第二篇Argu，依旧严重严重超时，不知行文上有木有一点点进步…… 请大家狠拍！狠狠拍！ 先谢过了！    

Argument 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 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 for all our pest control services."

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

By making comparison of the value of the destroyed food in Palm City, an area which Fly-Away Pest Control Company services at, with that in Wintervale, an area which Buzzoff Pest Control Company services at, it seems logical to return to Buzzoff for all the pest control services. However, the author fails to prove that Buzzoff works better than Fly-Away at all area with series of crucial evidence.

First of all, the president evaluates the two pest control companies with the value of the destroyed food in the two warehouses serviced by them respectively. But, the data with the value of only destroyed food but the total food in each warehouse is not enough to make a judgment. For example, if the warehouse in Wintervale contains $20,000 worth of food totally, while the warehouse in Palm City which may be the largest warehouse belong to this food distribution company contains over $200,000 worth of food in total, the percentage of destroyed food in Wintervale to Palm City is 50% to 10%. Obviously, the pest damage in Wintervale is more serious than that in Palm City. We can hardly make a conclusion that Buzzoff protect the food from pest damage more efficiently than Fly-Away.

In addition, the study with one-month period which is not long enough can not be seen as convincing evidence. It is entirely possible that Wintervale suffers a very low temperature during this month so that most of the pests are inactive. Meanwhile, Palm City
, a warmer area, is in the period that pest damage occurs most frequently of the year. In this case, the value of destroyed food in Palm City may be several times as much as that in Wintervale, even tough the Fly-Away Pest Control Company which services at Palm City works much harder than Buzzoff. Thus, we had better lengthening the study to a one-year period in order to adjust for any untypical statistics and rate the efficiency of the two companies more accurately.

Actually, even if we develop the argument with data with both total and fraction in a long enough period of study, the conclusion is still a hasty one because of the unfair comparison. In the argument, the author compares the effects of pest control in different cities serviced by different pest control companies respectively. However, the author fails to consider the differences between the two cities which may greatly influence the effect of pest control. For example, Palm City may be in a tropical region with countless species of pests vigorous all the year round, while Wintervale is an area of polar region where little pest can survive. In such case, it is unfair to claim that Buzzoff which service at Wintervale is more efficiency even if the food destroyed there is far less than that in Palm City.

Last, the president claims that Buzzoff is the best choice by considering the price charged by Fly-Away. But he/she does not provide any specific data. How much does each of the two countries charge? How much will the food distribution company pay for the change of facilities from Fly-Away to Buzzoff? Does the food distribution company have to pay for the break of contract damages? Without weighing all the costs and profits, the president can not justify the claim that return to Buzzoff is the best choice for the warehouse in Palm City
, let alone for all their pest control.

Overall, we need to have additional evidence in order to estimate the effect of two pest control companies, such as a one-year period study with complete data and fair comparison. We also need more information about the costs and profits causes by the change of the pest control company. What is more, only after the same careful studies in all the warehouses in different areas can the president make a final decision to return to Buzzoff for all their pest control.

竹林中人

建议写之前，可以将自己的质疑点写成一个逻辑链，一步步推进，环环相扣，这样有气势也有力度，当然也可能会出现两个逻辑链的情况。按照逻辑链写的好处是你的思路会很清晰，不会有交叉，写起来很顺畅，不会显得杂乱。
你的语言功底还是不错的

雨霖林

其实我在写之前是列过逻辑链的，但这一篇列得不很通顺，再加上表达存在些许偏差，确实有交叉、混乱的地方，我再好好屡屡。

不知这篇Argu在 首尾段的内容充实度 和 正文段的论证充分性上是否有欠缺呢？

弱弱地表示，其实是最近看了些范文 学来了些表达用在里面了，不过很感谢竹林版主的鼓励~

竹林中人

services at  at 最好移到which前面去
return to 这里最好用turn to
关于第一段，你最好写出题目中结论的依据，最后指出自己的立场。
结尾还行。中间的论证部分，还是等你修改完了再做评论吧。我自己认为中间段落的结构比较好的的是先指出文中不靠谱的依据，指出这种依据和结论之间的不合理，最后指出其他的可能性，或者是由这种不合理推出的比较荒唐的结果