argument78,求拍，特别的感谢~~

山依格紫

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.

In this argument, the president concludes that the best means of saving money is to return to Buzzoff for all our pest control services. To support this assertion the president points that last month over $20,000 worth of food there had been destroyed by pest damage in Palm City with the pest control of the Fly-Away Pest Control Company (F), while only $10,000 worth of the food stored there had been destroyed by pest damage in Wintervale with the pest control of the Buzzoff Pest Control Company(B), which we have used for many years. However, I find this argument suspicious on several grounds.

One, the president lacks sufficient information about the situations about the warehouses in Palm City and Wintervale to determine what the assertion, if any, can be drawn from it. It is very likely that the level of pest plague in Palm City was much more severe than that in Wintervile. If B serviced the warehouse in Palm City, it is entirely possible that the food would have larger losses. In addition, perhaps the quantity of food losses in Palm City was less but the food price was higher. It is also possible that the quantity of storage food in Palm City was much more than that in Wintervale, and both these possibilities could cause the greater loss in Palm City. Therefore, without detailed evidence about the food price and quantity and the pest plague situations, the president cannot justifiably depend on the loss of food to draw any conclusions whatsoever.

Two, even if the situations between two warehouses are similar or the same, the president provides no clear evidence about the concrete charging price about the two pest control companies. Though the food loss was lower if B service the warehouse, the price charged by B might be more than $10,000 than the charging price of F, thus, obviously B is not a good choice. However, the president overlooks this possibility, the conclusion is still ill-conceived.

And finally, even in pest control aspect the gross expense of food company in B was lesser than that in F, the assertion that the best means of saving money is to return to Buzzoff  for all our pest control services is also unpersuasive. Perhaps other pest control companies would be less money-consuming and more efficient. What's more, different companies have distinct advantages in the control of different kinds of pests, thus, we could choose different companies based on the pest kinds in different cities. Without addressing the evidence of data of other pest control companies, the president cannot convince me that B is the best choice in pest control.

Summed up, the argument is not grounded on sound reasoning and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To bolster it the president must provide clear and persuasive evidence that the situations about the storage warehouses were similar. That the expense in B was indeed lesser than that in F, in addition must prove that other pest control companies are worse than B.

jz20000cn

Very good

lukebrehm

very good! I still would strongly try to dissuade you from using abbreviations.

璐璐爱腰果

Two, even if the situations between two warehouses are similar or the same, the president provides no clear evidence about the concrete charging price about the two pest control companies. Though the food loss was lower if B service the warehouse, the price charged by B might be more than $10,000 than the charging price of F, thus, obviously B is not a good choice. However, the president overlooks this possibility, the conclusion is still ill-conceived

请问怎么理解你说的这段大意？O(∩_∩)O谢谢！