Arg-4
“Of the two leading real estate firms in our town—Adams Realty and Fitch Realty—Adams is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents. In contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover, Adams’ revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch, and included home sales that averaged $168,000, compared to Fitch’s $144,000. Homes listed with Adams sell faster as well: ten years ago, I listed my home with Fitch and it took more than four months to sell; last year, when I sold another home, I listed it with Adams, and it took only one month. Thus, if you want to sell your home quickly and at a good price, you should use Adams.”
The author argues that Adams Realty is superior to Fitch Realty. To support this claim the author cites statistics about the number and working hours of agents, and the number and sales prices of homes sold by the two farms. Further, the author cites anecdotal evidence involving personal experience with Fitch and Adams. A careful analysis reveals that this evidence lends little credible support for the argument.
The claim is partially based on the fact that Adams has more agents than Fitch and that many of Fitch’s agents work only part-time. There is no correlation between the number of employees, their working hours, and the quality of their work. Without such a link, we could consider the possibility that a smaller firm could be more effective than a larger one and, likewise, that a part-time agent could be more effective than a full-time agent. Besides, the author does not provide any information about the specific number of Adams agents who work part-time.
The claim is also supported by the fact that Adams sold more properties than Fitch last year. One year of sales records is an insufficient sample. It is possible that in most other years Adams could have sold fewer properties than Fitch. Moreover, the disparity in sales volume could be explained by factors other than the comparative quality of the two firms. For example, perhaps Adams serves a denser geographic area or in an area where turnover in home-ownership is higher for reasons unrelated to Adams’ effectiveness. It is even possible that the only reason sales volume is higher at Adams is because the company employs more agents but, perhaps, each Adams agent sells fewer homes on average than each Fitch agent does. Without ruling out such alternative explanations for the disparity in sales volume, the author cannot defend the conclusion based on such scant evidence.
Support for the claim is also drawn from the average sales price of homes. This evidence only illustrates that the homes that Adams sells are more valuable on average than the ones that Fitch sells, not that Adams is more effective in selling homes than Fitch. Moreover, it is possible that a few relatively high-priced or low-priced properties skewed these averages, rendering any conclusions about the comparative quality of the two firms based on these averages irrelevant.
The author of the argument indicates that Fitch Realty took a considerably longer time to sell one of the author’s homes than it took Adams Realty to sell another one of her homes ten years earlier. However, this disparity can be explained by other plausible factors including, for example, the changing economic conditions during that ten-year period or a difference in the desirability of the two properties. Without establishing that all other factors affecting the speed of a sale were essentially the same for the two homes, the author should not expect an audience to make a decision on this limited anecdotal evidence.
In conclusion, the claim is not a persuasive one. In order to convince an analytical reader, the author needs to provide clear evidence that individual Adams agents are more effective in selling homes than individual Fitch agents, and that the disparity in home sales and sales price is attributable to that difference. Also, to better evaluate the author’s claim the author needs to provide more information comparing the percentage of agents working part-time at Fitch versus Adams. Finally, the author needs to provide more information about the comparative attractiveness of the author’s two homes, and the extent to which the residential real-estate market changed during the decade between the sales of these two homes.
- The author argues that ….标志性的Argument开头段引出原文结论的语言表达形式。To support this claim the author cites statistics about …. Further, the author cites anecdotal evidence involving personal experience with ….引出原文为支持其结论所引用的一系列的荒谬论据。A careful analysis reveals that this evidence lends little credible support for argument. 标志性的指出文章错误的语言表达。整体开头段是标准的C—E—F的语言和逻辑模版体系。
- The claim is partially based on the fact that …. There is no correlation between …. Without such a link, we could consider the possibility that … and, likewise, that …. Besides, the author does not provide any information about …. 标志性的相关性错误的语言和逻辑模版体系。
- The claim is also supported by the fact that …. … is an insufficient sample. It is possible that …. 标志性的调查类错误的语言和逻辑模版体系。Moreover, the disparity in … could be explained by factors other than …. For example, perhaps …. It is even possible that …. Without ruling out such alternative explanations for the disparity in …, the author cannot defend the conclusion based on such scant evidence. 标志性的因果类错误的语言和逻辑模版体系。
- Support for the claim is also drawn from …. This evidence only illustrates that …, not that …. 标志性的因果类错误的语言和逻辑模版体系。Moreover, it is possible that a few relatively high or low … skewed these averages, rendering any conclusions about ... based on these averages irrelevant. 标志性的平均值错误的语言和逻辑模版体系。
- The author of the argument indicates that …. However, this disparity can be explained by other plausible factors, for example, ….Without establishing that all other factors affecting … were essentially the same, the author should not expect an audience to make a decision on this limited anecdotal evidence.标志性的错误类比的语言和逻辑模版体系。
- In conclusion, the claim is not a persuasive one. In order to convince an analytical reader, the author needs to provide clear evidence that …. Also, to better evaluate the author’s claim the author needs to provide more information comparing …. Finally, the author needs to provide more information about …. 标志性的Argument结尾段的Conclusion—Suggestion体系的语言和逻辑模版体系。
本文的写作体现出了非常严谨的开头段—正文段1、2、3、4—结尾段的逻辑体系:开头段 The author argues that ….正文段1 The claim is partially based on the fact that ….正文段2 The claim is also supported by the fact that ….正文段3 Support for the claim is also drawn from ….正文段4 The author of the argument indicates that ….结尾段 In conclusion, the claim is not a persuasive one.特别值得一提的是本文正文第二段的写作。该段首先通过One year of sales records is an insufficient sample. It is possible that in most other years Adams could have sold fewer properties than Fitch.两句简要说明原文中出现的调查类错误;进一步,段中Moreover, the disparity in sales volume could be explained by factors other than the comparative quality of the two firms.一句指出原文中出现的因果类错误,并紧接着通过For example, perhaps ….和It is even possible that ….两句递进地提出两种其它的可能解释;最后,该段通过Without ruling out such alternative explanations for the disparity in sales volume, the author cannot defend the conclusion based on such scant evidence.一句对全段讨论进行总结,充分展现出了正文段严密的逻辑思路。