argument第六篇 求狠拍 还是速度慢 感觉写的一般

eeeeason

TOPIC: ARGUMENT41 - The following appearedin a memo from the vice president of a food-distribution company withfood-storage warehouses in several cities.

"Recently we signed a contract withThe Fly-Away Pest-Control Company to provide pest-control services at ourfast-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, theBuzzoff Pest-Control Company, which we have used for many years, continued toservice our warehouse in Wintervale, and last month only $10,000 worth of thefood stored there had been destroyed by pest damage. Even though the pricecharged by Fly-Away is considerably lower, our best means of saving money is toreturn to Buzzoff Company for all our pest-control services."
WORDS: 606          TIME: 00:47:00          DATE: 2012/9/14 19:15:38


1、BPC 已经服务多年了，而 FPC刚签约，可能还不是很熟悉情况，过段时间也许做得更好
2、证据不足以表明 BPC 就比 FPC 服务要好。P 市与 W 市的害情是否不同。例如不同货物不同地区导致虫子杀死的难易度不同.没有考虑到两个城市PEST damage 的严重程度；两个城市的货物总量，损失的比例.
3、用 BPC 不一定省钱，也许extra charge comparable with PC offset, even exceed the saving money byreducing pest damaging. 也许还有其他公司可供选择，或采取其他方法。



Merely based upon false analogy andsuspicious evidence, the argument draws a conclusion that returning to BuzzoffCompany for all pest-control services is still the best choice, though theprice of Fly-Away is comparatively lower. To justify the argument, the arguercites the facts that over twenty thousand dollars worth of food had beendestroyed by pest damage, while the goods destroyed are worth ten thousanddollars. In addition, since that Buzzoff Company is providing services for thewarehouse for a long time, the arguer recommends continuing to use the BuzzoffCompany. However, close scrutiny of this conclusion reveals that it isunconvincing in several aspects.

First and foremost, since that the BuzzoffCompany services have been used in the past for a long time to kill pests, itis, to some extent, it is already familiar with the conditions of thewarehouse, thus takes less time and cost less to accomplish the task. Given thefact that The Fly-Away Pest-Control Company is recently signed, it makes sensethat it could not be as efficient and effective as the Buzzoff Company. And inthis way, the false assumption at the very begining that the two companies arein similar situations renders the argument dubious.

Moreover, even if the assumption of the twocompanies is rational and accurate, the argument could still hardly beconvincing and valid derived from the questionable analogy. The arguerarbitrarily assumes that the extent of the pest damage to the goods and theworth of the total products in two cities are commeasurable. It might bepossible that the total amount of the Palm City is more than twice than that ofthe warehouse in Wintervale, which then makes the degree of the damage in PalmCity less severe than that in Wintervale. Moreover, the pesticide and the speciesof the pests could contribute to the differences of the damage in two cities,and thus the difficulty of killing sects could vary as well. Without ruling outsuch detailed information of the two cities and two Pest-Control Companies, theargument could be hardly acceptable.

Finally, even if all the conditions of thepest-control services in two cities could be regarded the same, there are stillcritical logical flaws in this argument. The arguer unfairly claims that itwill cost less by choosing the Buzzoff Company. It is entirely possible that,besides the predictable cost of killing pests, there could always be extracharge of the pest control, for example, there has to be regular sanitarycleaning to be completed that will require more money. More importantly,without taking other possible solution into account, , the argument is againconsidered questionable, for example, there might be some other companies thatare both professional and inexpensive. On the consequence, if none of the abovequestions could be explained and claims be supported, the conclusion isregarded totally invalid.

To sum up, the arguer fails to substantiatethat the choosing the Buzzoff Company could contribute more to decreasing thepest damage of the goods in the warehouse. To make the claim and the conclusionlogically cogent, the arguer would have to demonstrate that the percentage ofthe goods being damaged by pests in Palm city is bigger than that inWintervale, which probably could lend some support for the conclusion.Additionally, the arguer would have to provide detailed cost of each company ofthe total charge of pest control, which could be made use of to prove thatchoosing one of them is actually cheaper. Therefore, if all the above raisedquestions and conditions are carefully explained, the conclusion could be moreacceptable and reliable.

普渡哥

理由找得很好，结构也很好。good job!

普渡哥

喜欢这样的结尾，给了solusion。 This is really important.