argument 求改

roofding

时间还是不够啊...
. The following appeared in a memo at XYZ company.



"When XYZ lays off employees, it pays Delany Personnel Firm to offer those employees assistance in creating résumés and developing interviewing skills, if they so desire. Laid-off employees have benefited greatly from Delany's services: last year those who used Delany found jobs much more quickly than did those who did not. Recently, it has been proposed that we use the less expensive Walsh Personnel Firm in place of Delany. This would be a mistake because eight years ago, when XYZ was using Walsh, only half of the workers we laid off at that time found jobs within a year. Moreover, Delany is clearly superior, as evidenced by its bigger staff and larger number of branch offices. After all, last year Delany's clients took an average of six months to find jobs, whereas Walsh's clients took nine."



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.


It might seem logical, at first glance, to agree with the argument that employing XYZ Company is a better choice to provide the laid-off employees with job-hunting service. However, in to order to fully evaluate the this argument, we need to have a significant amount of additional evidence. The argument could be end up weaker than it seems, or it might actually be quite valid. For purpose of making this determination, we need to know more and then analyze it.
The first evidence we would need to evaluate the author’s argument is information about whether Delany just performs well in last year but not an enduring excellent performance regarding training employees and helping them find new jobs. It’s entirely possible that last year the laid-off employees are all from computer engineering department, who are most welcomed by the market. If so, even if without Delany, these employees could still find good jobs by themselves. Therefore, if we had little evidence that XYZ do serve the key function on assistance of hunting jobs, it would certainly weaken the author’s argument.
Another evidence that might help to justify the author’s argument involves the Walsh. The author pointed out that when hiring this company for personnel service, they performed poor 8 years ago. However if we learnt to know that it is a typical phenomenon that labor demand is sluggish.8 years ago when the economics stayed nadir, we may find Walsh’s performance may be not bad as we thought. What’s more, if we extend the job-hunting period to one year and half, we may even find that Walsh actually perform best because all of the laid-off employees have found new jobs. Eventually, even if they did poor 8 years ago, no information intimates that they have not experienced any improvement. Perhaps the company employs more experienced staffs, or perhaps the company strengthens its relation with the industries, which are all conducive for employees to seek jobs. Thus, only if the author’s offer strong evidence that Walsh will also fail this time, we may not approve the author’s argument.
Lastly, it’s interesting to find that the author make his recommendation according to the scale of the companies. Bigger meaning better may be right in some situations. Nevertheless, if staff per branches in Delany is less than Walsh, it’s hard to convince that the Delany could offer better service. After all, a good service should be measured on how much professional service customers can enjoy. In short, the author has to validate his argument by specifically pointing out why big scale is advantageous, or this evidence is irrelevant.

In sum, to convince that the Delany should be chosen to provide personnel service, the author has to do nothing but providing more evidence as proposed above and scrutinize the argument carefully. Otherwise, the recommendation made in this memo is weak and can be easily toppled.

It might seem logical, at first glance, to agree with the argument that employing XYZ Company is a better choice to provide the laid-off employees with job-hunting service. However, in to order to fully evaluate the this argument, we need to have a significant amount of additional evidence. The argument could be end up weaker than it seems, or it might actually be quite valid. For purpose of making this determination, we need to know more and then analyze it.
The first evidence we would need to evaluate the author’s argument is information about whether Delany just performs well in last year but not an enduring excellent performance regarding training employees and helping them find new jobs. It’s entirely possible that last year the laid-off employees are all from computer engineering department, who are most welcomed by the market. If so, even if without Delany, these employees could still find good jobs by themselves. Therefore, if we had little evidence that XYZ do serve the key function on assistance of hunting jobs, it would certainly weaken the author’s argument.
Another evidence that might help to justify the author’s argument involves the Walsh. The author pointed out that when hiring this company for personnel service, they performed poor 8 years ago. However if we learnt to know that it is a typical phenomenon that labor demand is sluggish.8 years ago when the economics stayed nadir, we may find Walsh’s performance may be not bad as we thought. What’s more, if we extend the job-hunting period to one year and half, we may even find that Walsh actually perform best because all of the laid-off employees have found new jobs. Eventually, even if they did poor 8 years ago, no information intimates that they have not experienced any improvement. Perhaps the company employs more experienced staffs, or perhaps the company strengthens its relation with the industries, which are all conducive for employees to seek jobs. Thus, only if the author’s offer strong evidence that Walsh will also fail this time, we may not approve the author’s argument.
Lastly, it’s interesting to find that the author make his recommendation according to the scale of the companies. Bigger meaning better may be right in some situations. Nevertheless, if staff per branches in Delany is less than Walsh, it’s hard to convince that the Delany could offer better service. After all, a good service should be measured on how much professional service customers can enjoy. In short, the author has to validate his argument by specifically pointing out why big scale is advantageous, or this evidence is irrelevant.

In sum, to convince that the Delany should be chosen to provide personnel service, the author has to do nothing but providing more evidence as proposed above and scrutinize the argument carefully. Otherwise, the recommendation made in this memo is weak and can be easily toppled.

普渡哥

It might seem logical，might是可能的意思，seem是看上去的意思，也有可能之意。两个连在一起我也不知道合理不合理。