这是我第二篇argument文章，希望能使劲地提意见哟！谢谢

yyallez

第一篇被人说像issue写法，这篇不知怎么样，谢谢指点！

4:  A report presented for discussion at a meeting of the directors of a company that manufactures parts for heavy machinery:
    The falling revenues that the company is experiencing coincide with the delays in manufacturing. These delays, in turn, are due in large part to poor planning in purchasing metals. Consider further that the manager of the department that handles purchasing of raw materials has an excellent background in general business, psychology, and sociology, but knows little about the properties of metals. The company should, therefore, move the purchasing manager to the sales department and bring in a scientist from the research division to be manager of the purchasing department.

    Generally speaking, this argument is not strictly reasoned. It concluded that, on one hand, the delay in manufacturing, in turn the purchasing of the materials is responsible for the falling revenues, and on the other hand, because of the lack of the knowledge of metal, the current manager of purchasing department should be replaced by a scientist, which in other word, correlate the knowledge of properties of metals with the purchasing planning. Apparently, this conclusion cannot be substantiated under critical reasoning.
    For one thing, the author commit a fallacy of causal oversimplification, which means that the argument doesn't provide possible reasoning or instance to verify that the falling revenues are resulted from delay in manufacturing or poor planning in purchasing materials. The fact that falling revenues coincides with the delay in manufacturing does not necessarily prove that they are consequence and reason.
    For the other thing, the argument offers a recommendation on the basis of the gratuitous assumption that the lack of knowledge of the properties of metals resulted in the poor planning in purchasing materials. This assumption is not well grounded as there is no evidence stated in the argument to support it. As a matter of fact, purchasing planning is of little business of the knowledge of metals. And on the other hand, good background in business does not means the former manager would not have some pitfalls in making the plans. Therefore, this assumption, in turn, the conclusion is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.
    What's more, recommending a scientist to take the place of the former manager is a real nonsense. How can the author promise that the scientist, probably with less professional knowledge of planning, can do a better job than a person with excellent background, as planning requires more business knowledge rather than metal knowledge?
    In conclusion, the author fails to provide adequate justification for the possible connection between revenue falls and delay in manufacturing. And the argument also does not constitute a logical argument in favor of the recommendation. In order to strengthen the argument, the author has to provide solid evidence that the delay in manufacturing has something to do with the falls in revenues. Again, to better support the reasonableness of the author's recommendation, the author need to demonstrate the significance of the knowledge of metals in planning in purchasing the metals.