- UID
- 711853
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-1-17
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
In this argument, the author recommends that the company should return to Buzzoff Pest ControlCompany for all their pest control services. Because they lost over $20000worth of fast-food cared by Fly-away company resulting from pest damage, while the loss of food protected by Buzzoff only costs $10000. Although the recommendation may be right, the argument is rife with holes and assumptions,and thus, not strong enough to lead to it. Firstly,the author only provides the absolute number of loss in Palm City ,lacking information related to the total number. We need to know how much foodare kept there and what’s its overall value. If there is a value of $200000 fast-food, then 20000-dollar loss would only constitute a negligible portion. From this perspective, the Fly-away Pest Control Company has done a pretty good job.So we can not blame it with assumption solely based on an absolute number. Moreover,the comparison between Fly-away and Buzzoff is also selective and incomplete. Thetwo cities may have totally different environments, which would significantlyaffect the pests’ reproduction and infection procedure. For instance, the cityof Palm mayhave a much moister and warmer climate while humidity and temperature in Wintervaleare rigid all the year around. These factors will all make the Fly-away companyface more severe pest damage in Palm City, and undermine the credibility of such analogy.
Even if author can substantiate those assumptions and comparisons, it is still unwarranted to conclude that Buzzoff Company will continue its performance in thefuture. Dramatic changes-such as poor management, outdated pesticides and new adaptive species-would also cast doubt on the company’s reliability. In addition, the argument doesn’t provide sufficent evidences to guarantee they could save money by returning all contracts to Buzzoff. If the price of Buzzoffis considerably high, then its cost will offset the potential benefits saving from pest damage. Last but not least, the argument has made Fly-away and Buzzoff mutually exclusive options. Perhaps there are other alternative companies which also expert inpest controlling. These company may have more effective solutions and charge less in the contract. Besides that, transforming the conditions in warehouse and making it more difficult for pests to live, are also available choices. By decreasing the temperature in warehouse to nearly 0 Celsius degree, it would be extremely hard for pests to survive, so damage will be considerably reduced. In summary, the author fails to provide enough evidences for a convincingargument. In order to strengthen the analysis, more comprehensive data are recommended, and it would more reliable if the comparison can be set in thesame condition. What’s more, other factors and solutions should also be taken into consideration, to further solidify the argument. |
|