- UID
- 698084
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2011-12-2
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
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 memo the president suggested that the best way for food Distribution Company to save money is to return to Buzzoff for all their pest control services. In order to support his recommendation , the president compared different losses of the company caused by pest damage, when protect service is served by two companies . Even though the price charged by Fly-Away is considerably lower, their best means of saving money is to return to Buzzoff for all our pest control services. However, under careful scrutiny, this memo reveals several fallacious flaws, and much more evidence is needed to make his memo more cogent. Firstly, the comparison between Buzzoff Pest Control Company and Fly-Away Control Company is not very rational, and this can not give us a very clear conclusion about which is better. The arguer provide the fact that Fly-Away, which providing pest control services at fast-food warehouse in Palm City, lost $20,000. The Buzzoff Pest Control Company, continued to service warehouse in Wintervale, only $10,000 worth of the food stored there had been destroyed by pest damage. After reading this, we can not be confused by these plausible and seemly numbers. Because Palm City and Wintervale may be totally two different cities, we are not given clear information about these two cities. It is more likely that the amount of food for pest control service in two cities is different. If the food protected by Fly-away Company is twice lager than that protected by Buzzoff, we can not judge the service level only from money lost. Moreover, how serious pest damage in two cities, the information is also not given. Maybe the damage levels are different in two cities, especially fast-food warehouse in Palm City Fly-Away, protected by Fly-away, suffered more serious pest damage, so it lost more money than food those serviced by Buzzoff Pest Control Company.
What's more, the president said regardless of Fly-Away Company’s lower charge, best means of saving money is to return to Buzzoff for all our pest control services. Getting this conclusion, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. The president makes this conclusion without any statistical calculation. We all know that profits equals to the money which company saved reduce money the company lost or cost. The arguer didn't give us any information about money which is saved and lost in total, when choose these different companies, so which is the best means of saving money is not clear. More evidences are needed to support this conclusion.
To sum up, under this unseemly compare and without clear evidence, we can not say that the company which lost more money when suffering pest damage is bad choice. If the president want to give this argument a better support and make it more cogent, more situations need to take in consideration, more reasonable compare should be given, and more logical analysis is also necessary. |
|