Argument78

kekele007

Thefollowing appeared in a memo from the vice president of a food distributioncompany with food storage warehouses in several cities.

"Recently,we signed a contract with the Fly-Away Pest Control Company to provide pestcontrol services at our fast-food warehouse in Palm City, but last month wediscovered that over $20,000 worth of food there had been destroyed by pestdamage. Meanwhile, the Buzzoff Pest Control Company, which we have used formany years, continued to service our warehouse in Wintervale,and last month only $10,000 worth of the food stored there had been destroyedby pest damage. Even though the price charged by Fly-Away is considerablylower, our best means of saving money is to return to Buzzoff for all our pestcontrol services."

Writea response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluatethe argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen theargument.

Restrainfrom comprehensive analysis, the argument seems to be intellectual that thefood distribution company’s best means of saving money is to return to Buzzofffor all its pest control services. However, to better evaluate the argument, weneed to obtain a spate of additional evidence. And the argument could finallybeing much weaker than it initial plausibility, or it might virtually be farvalid. For making the determination, we need to know more to analyze what welearn.

Forone thing, the evidence that we would need to evaluate the argument is theinformation about the exact situation of the company’s fast-food warehouse inPalm City. The only information we learned is over $20,000 worth of food inPalm City had been destroyed by pest damage last month. However, we don’t knowwhat is the pervious deficiency which caused by pest damage. If the fooddestroyed by pest damage is even much larger than $20,000, in which case, theFly-Away Pest Control Company actually has taken an effective measure tocontrol the pest damage. Then, the argument is inevitably be weakened. On thecontrary, if the precious deficiency is much less than $20,000, we can concludethe Fly-Away may take inappropriate actions leading to a bad performance. Andin this case, the argument is strengthened and more cogent.

Anotherpiece of evidence that might help us evaluate the vice president’s argumentinvolves whether or not the fast-food warehouse in Palm City has any unexpectedaccidents. For example, if the city experienced an abrupt change in weatherduring the last month which could lead to the increasing number of pest.Another case may occur that the warehouse was destroyed and it didn’t acquirerepair immediately then the pest can easily access the food finally makingadditional deficiency. These possible cases demonstrate it is not the Fly-Awaycompany’s fault and thus they will unarguably weaken the argument.

Inaddition, more admissible and adequate proofs are ought to be given aboutwhether or not the two cities share similar situation such as marketingstructure, consumption level, weather, population and so on. If there is anextraordinary gap between Palm City and Wintervale, we could not compare thetwo pest control companies’ performance. For instance, if Wintervale is lesssuitable for pest propagating offsprings, the city’s magnitude of pest willless than Palm City. Hence, it is no surprising for the food distributioncompany lossing less in Wintervale than Palm City during last month. However,in view of the additional circumstances, one could not certainly claim thatBazzoff Pest Control Company is better than Fly-Away Pest Control Company. Theinitial argument might seems inconsequential.

Obviously,the author is supposed to provide more specific evidence in order to validatethe argument and give us a more thorough understanding of the strengths andstraits of the vice president’s memo.

普渡哥

结尾可以好好谢谢，如果有时间，有好处。