不会写要回答什么问题的Argument啊！！！高手速速现身呐！Argument114

周花生

一个公司要换一个杀虫的公司，理由有
1.上个月 我们跟FA公司签约的地方 损失了2万被虫咬的食物
2.用原来B公司的地方只损失了1万被虫咬的食物
3.即使FA的价格更低廉，为了赚钱，我们应该用原来的B公司来杀虫。



The author of the recommendation suggests that in order to saving money, the best way is to return to Buzzoff for our pest control services, based on the fact that after signed a contract with the Fly-Away Control Company, our another warehouse in Palm city lost over $20000 worth of food that has been destroyed by pest damage last month. Meanwhile, another warehouse in Wintervale, which is still using Buzzoff's service, only lost &10000 worth of the food during the same time. The recommendation seems pretty reasonable and plausible, however, it still contains several loopholes, which could strongly undermine the feasibility of the recommendation.



First of all, the statistics the author cites is too vague as there is no reasonable comparison, so that we cannot evaluate Fly-Away's work appropriately. While it may be true that last month we lost over $20000 worth of food, but we have no idea that what the situation was before FA's services. It is likely that Plam City is a very dirty town, where the situation and weather are very suitable for insects and pest, and thereby, without FA works, it could be a total mass, meaning a much bigger loss. Also, we do not know whether the pest there is resistant to the chemicals we use today. Chances are high that, after a long time fighting with human being, the survived pest in Palm City can no longer be significantly affected by the chemicals we use, rendering a possibility that, no matter which company undertakes the job, the result could be the same as the tests are strong enough. So, without asking and answering such questions like what was the situation before, what was the hygiene situation and are pests there too strong to resist the chemicals, the author's argument is completely unacceptable.



Another logical fallacy the author commits is that ignoring a series distinction may exist between the two cities, he or she made presumptuously comparison of the two companies' works. Unlike Plam City, Wintervale may be located in a cold region, making it very arduous for pest to live there. So, it is possible that even without any pest control, we may lose the same amount of food in Wintervale. Another possible scenario is that we only stored a very small amount of food in Wintervale, and 10000 could also be a significant loss. Hence, in order to make his or her more persuasive, the author needs to find the answer to questions like what was the weather there in Wintervale, how much food did we store there and what percentage did we lose last month, to substantiate the conclusion.



Moreover, the author creates a false dilemma that we have to choose a company between Fly-Away and Buzzoff. But, in fact, these two options are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps, several eminent pests companies exist that are not only good at controlling pest but also willing to offer a nice price. Besides, since we have signed with FA company, it proves that there must be something wrong with Buzzoff's services before, otherwise it does not make any sense to alter our original plan. Therefore, further investigation is highly needed to answer the questions like is there any better pest control companies and how was the Buzzoff's work before.



In sum, to justify his argument, the author list some facts and statistics, which, unfortunately, after a scrupulous examination, are proved unwarranted as there are several questions the author need to answer, meaning any further decision based on the recommendation unwise and even perilous.



只要限时。。。。。。语言一下子变得好贫乏啊只能LIKE来LIKE去啊！。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。
难过

普渡哥

The author of the recommendation suggests that in order to saving money,  

第一句就出现了语法错误

in order to do sth.

周花生

$%^%&^%#$#%#^%*&    好囧。。      多谢！

竹林中人

有鉴于此，我建议你在掐时训练的时候，着重在自己的论述那里费点功夫，在紧张环境刺激下你的思维会很活跃而摆脱很多的束缚