Argu78 之前没发在求拍区，这是我第一篇Argu，希望有人能帮我纠正我的错误，帮我找到正确的方向

zhouyue0223

Argument78

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.



不限时，字数484


提纲：1.需要提供证据指出两地各方面完全一样，能进行比较
            2. 证据不能证明可以根据损失食物的费用来评价杀虫效果，这个推论站不住脚
            3.即使上述都成立， 还要考虑两杀虫公司方法的副作用；必须排除没有其他更好的公司可以选择


In the memo above, the author recommends that the food distribution company should return to Buzzoff for all their pest control services to save money. The notion to choose Buzzoff ,based on the comparison of different damage with two companies’ pest control services, seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. However, close scrutiny of the argument , rite with holes and evidence, reveals how groundless the conclusion is.

First and foremost, evidence that the food storage warehouses are all the same at every aspect is needed to make the comparison effectively. Nevertheless, the author fails to take into account possible differences between the two warehouses. For instance, the cities where the warehouses located may have disparate natural conditions. And common sense tells us some kinds of climates are more likely to cause pest multiplication so that aggrandize the difficulty for the company to exterminate the pests. Besides, if one warehouse abut on the place attracting more pests such as a parterre or an orchard, while the other is not , it is not unfair to assess the pest control service in the light of the same criterion. Unless the author also take these differences into consideration, returning to the Buzzoff is unconvincing.

In addition, the author suggest that the less money the damaged food values , the better effect of pest control services is, an implication lacking necessary evidence to substantiate the inference. If the food stored in the warehouses is identical, this may be true. But if there are distinct sorts between the two warehouses, this may be not true. The estimation of the damage worth also influenced by the food unit price and the inherent feature of the food. Perhaps some kinds of food is more expensive and apt to pest damage, so it is more justifiable for the company to assess the effect of the pest control service according to the proportion of the pests diminished rather than how much the damaged food valued.

Finally, even though all the foregoing evidence is provided, the author still arrives at the recommendation unpersuasively. No evidence consider the side effect of two companies’ methods to control the pests. Maybe the Buzzoff’s means is more pernicious than the Fly-Away for the storing food. And the author assumed the two pest control companies are mutually exclusive alternations, which is, without a doubt, an obviously unwarranted assumption. The food distribution company possesses copious choices in the pool of pest service companies.

As it stands, the commendation to return to Buzzoff is plausible to function in effect, but it is based on insufficient evidence. To corroborate the argument, the author ought to supply more evidence about the similarity of the cities, and regard the characteristic of the food stockpiled. Moreover, without deliberating the disadvantages of the Buzzoff company and ruling out other better pest control companies, the credibility of the recommendation is still open to doubt.

zhouyue0223

谢谢指导，我会努力的

uniquechong

千万不要忽视argument~我现在想想，作文3.5，argument很可能就3分~~一定要多写几篇argument~平心说，我考场写的也是这个题目，还没你这个写的好~

zhouyue0223

谢谢版主，看了你的回复，我信心大增啊

普渡哥

Very good job!