5.5分周末party9月组 tutudoudou no.23 第四次 argument241
argument241
In this memo, the speaker attempts to prove that using Walsh Personnel Firm in place of Delany is a mistake with the evidences that (1) when XYZ was using Walsh, only half of the workers found jobs in a short time. (2)Delany is superior with a bigger staff and larger number of branch offices (3) Delany’s clients take a fewer time to find jobs. However, I find this assertion inconvincible and flawed for several reasons as follows.
Firstly, the arguer arbitrarily connects the outdated fact with the inference, present-day’s low effect of Walsh. Common sense tells us that everything changes with time flying. So does the company Walsh. However ,the arguer offers no evidence that Walsh remains the same in 8 years; What’s more, it is much more possible that the Walsh improves its effect and competes ageist Delany for position of the leader. Lacking the consideration of change, this assumption should be thought of inaccurate and inconvincible.
Secondly, the arguer makes certain dubious assumptions that Walsh is inefficient, with the "fact" that half of the workers laid off found jobs within a year. As a matter of fact, it is likely that the level of workers is so different. According to the law of nature, the low level should be eliminated. What’s more, maybe the employee worked again has an excellent job .Yet the arguer does not mention it. Without the ruling out this possibility, the assertion is flawed obviously.
Thirdly, the arguer infers to a wrong deduction that Delany is superior referring to a bigger staff and larger number of branch offices. Admittedly, there is no logical relationship between these. In fact, whether an organization is effective depends on the running of business rather than the number of staffs and branch offices. After all, the fewer we employed, the fewer we paid; the better employee we choosed, the more effective our company is. Lacking details about the ability of staff and the effect of branch offices, the inference can not stand stably.
Finally, the arguer asserts Delany's advantages with the comparison between Delany and Walsh about the time spending.Indeed, whether the company is well-choose depends on various factors. Time is one of them. There are also other factors such as the wage and the position. However the memo offers none. The importance of income cannot be overemphasized for the employee. Ignoring these factors, the assertion should be considerate partial and unfair.
To sum up my opinion, this assertion is inconvincible and flawed. To substantiate it, the speaker should offer more details about the result of the employees; what’s more, it is indispensable to give up the level of employee ,then there will be a better comparision.The last, the speaker had better knowledge the relationship between high effect and the number of branches deeply.
