Argument 78, 求拍，多谢各位！

shuaiherowang

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.
提纲：
1两地的差异：天气，环境，food的总价值，损失的比例
2只有一个月的数据，没有证据显示B要价合理
3是否有更好的选择。

不限时写的，第一篇Argument，共525字。

感觉Argument不比Issue好写啊，Issue写了6、7篇稍微有点感觉了，但Argument要想写的有特点太难了，看来那篇“简单粗暴写好Argument”说的很对，Argument还是写得规矩点好。。

At first glance, it might appear rational to concur with the vice president's suggestion--that the food company should cut its budget by replacing the service of Fly-away with that of Buzzoff. And, objectively, we do cannot rule out the possibility that Buzzoff Company has a better performance in protecting food warehouse against pest attack. Upon closer inspection, however, it becomes obvious that quite amount of extra evidence is indispensable to warrant the vice president's recommendation.

Using data about the pest-induced loss in the warehouses, the vice president suggests that Buzzoff is of higher effectiveness. However, remarkably little is known about the situation of the warehouses in Palm City (Fly-away) and Wintervale (Buzzoff). For one thing, although $20000, no doubt, is observably higher than $10000, there is no guarantee that Fly-away is of poorer performance. It is absurd to deny the probability that the total value of food stored in Palm City is much more than 2 times higher than that of Wintervale and the loss in Palm City, therefore, accounts for a smaller percentage of total value. Furthermore, the climate in Palm City may be much warmer and wetter and so be more suitable for pest to proliferate. Or the warehouse in Palm City may be located near the rural where is more susceptible to pest attack, while the warehouse in Wintervale near the urban. Without evidence to eliminate these factors able to justify Fly-away’s bigger loss, the suggestion is untenable.

Moreover, the vice president implies that the higher price charged from Buzzoff is rational, but without mentioning the specific value of Buzzoff’s cost and the report of other months. If, for example, the report of last month is just an anomaly, and Fly-meal has smaller loss than Buzzoff does in other months, then the cost charged by Buzzoff is less reasonable. Or even if Fly-away is of bad effectiveness all the time, but the difference between the total loss is less than that between the price charged from the two company, then the vice president’s position still does not hold up. In order to rationalize the Buzzoff’s price, only the report of last month is far from enough.

A further flaw is that, even though the foregoing assumptions turn out to be valid, the author just simply considers Buzzoff and Fly-away are mutual exclusive alternatives. Are there other pest control companies available? We don’t know. Nor do we know the price charged from other companies. If those companies have even better report than Buzzoff, or charge even lower price than Fly-away, then the range of alternatives seems to be too narrow. To warrant his recommendation, a wider comparison including more optional company is essential.

Certainly, it is not unreasonable for a food company to reduce budget by choosing a partner with better performance in protecting its goods. The vice president's argument, nevertheless, is unlikely to justify his proposal, unless additional information is given. There are, for instance, at least three pieces of information needing to be added: a more careful analysis of the situation of the warehouses in the two cities; the report of other moths; and the report about other companies accessible.

fangdanzaia

写得很好啊=  = 只是考试半小时估计打不完吧 估计要把第三点去掉到时候

普渡哥

写的不错，继续加油！

普渡哥

it is not unreasonable for a food company to reduce budget by choosing a partner with better performance in protecting its goods.

not unreasonable= reasonable, 为什么要绕完？美国人应该不喜欢这样表达。