63. The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a local newspaper.
The Cumquat Caf made a mistake in moving to a new location. After one year at the new spot, it is doing about the same volume of business as before, but the owners of the RoboWrench plumbing supply wholesale outlet that took over its old location are apparently doing better: RoboWrench is planning to open a store in a neighboring city.
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
地方报纸的商业版：
Cumquat咖啡店搬到新地址是个错误。到新址的一年以后，它的营业额和以前基本一样。但在它的原址开业的提供铅管批发出口的Robo Wrench的店主显然做的更好。Robo Wrench正计划在临近城市开一家店。
1. False analogy
2. Other factors other than location that may contribute to the faliure of the Cumquat Cafe should be considered and ruled out.
3. Likewise, there may be some other factors that will explain the success of the success of the RoboWrench plumbing.
4. One years poor performance is too wake an evidence to conclude that the Cafe has made a mistake to relocate.
According to this newspaper article, the Cumquat Cafe made a mistake by relocating one year ago. The author supports this claim by pointing out that Cumquat is doing about the same volume of business as before it moved, while RoboWrench plumbing supply outlet, which took over Cumquats old location, is apparently doing better because its owners plan to open a new outlet in a nearby city. This argument suffers from several critical flaws.
To begin with, the two businesses are too dissimilar for meaningful comparison. Cumquats old location may simply have been better suited to hardware, plumbing, and home improvement businesses than to cafes and restaurants. The articles claim that Cumquat made a mistake in moving fails to take this possibility into account.
Secondly, the articles claim that RoboWrench is doing better since it took over Cumquats old location is too vague to be meaningful. The author fails to provide a second term of this comparison. We are not informed whether RoboWrench is doing better than before it moved, better than other plumbing stores, or better than Cumquat. This uninformative comparison is worthless as evidence from which to judge the wisdom of Cumquats decision to relocate.
Thirdly, the claim that RoboWrench is doing better is unwarranted by the evidence. The mere fact that RoboWrench plans to open a new store in a nearby city does not by itself establish that business is good. It is possible that the purpose of this plan is to compensate for lackluster business at the current location. Or perhaps the RoboWrench owners are simply exercising poor business judgment.
Finally, the claim that Cumquat made a mistake in moving may be too hasty, since the conclusion is based on only one years business at the new location. Moreover, given the time it ordinarily takes for a business to develop a new customer base in a new location, the fact that Cumquats volume of business is about the same as before it moved tends to show that the move was a good decision, not a mistake.
In conclusion, the claim that Cumquats move was a mistake is ill-founded, since it is based on both poor and incomplete comparisons as well as on a premature conclusion. To better assess the argument, we need to know what the author is comparing RoboWrenchs performance to; we also need more information about the extent of RoboWrenchs success at this location and why its owners are opening a new store.
64. The following appeared in a memorandum from the Director of Human Resources to the executive officers of Company X.
Last year, we surveyed our employees on improvements needed at Company X by having them rank, in order of importance, the issues presented in a list of possible improvements. Improved communications between employees and management was consistently ranked as the issue of highest importance by the employees who responded to the survey. As you know, we have since instituted regular communications sessions conducted by high-level management, which the employees can attend on a voluntary basis. Therefore, it is likely that most employees at Company X now feel that the improvement most needed at the company has been made.
人力资源经理给X公司的经营主管的备忘录：
去年，我们向员工调查他们认为X公司应该进行的改进，让他们把改进按重要性排列。结果列印为一张可能的改进的表格。根据调查中员工的反应，加强员工和管理层的沟通最具重要性，稳居调查表之首。如你所知，那以后我们建立了由高层管理人员组织，雇员可以自愿参加的常规交流会。因此，看来X的多数员工认为最应该进行的改进已经完成了。
1. The result of a last years survey does not necessarily represent the improvement most needed of this year.
2. How was the survey held has not been illustrated by the author, thus making the conclusion groundless.
3. Whether the implement of the mentioned resolution is right or wrong is still unkonwn, it is still too early to say the improvement has been made.
1， 调查的可信性：是否anonymous，如果要named，很可能并不是他们最想要的改进。
2， 改进方法是否充分?是否交流会有很好交流，并且采纳accept意见
The Director of Human Resources concludes that most employees at Company X feel that the improvement most needed at the company has been satisfactorily addressed. Two reasons are offered in support of this conclusion. First, a survey of employees showed that the issue respondents were most concerned about was employee-management communication. Second, the company has since instituted regular voluntary sessions for employees and management designed to improve communication. The directors argument is questionable for two reasons.
To begin with, the validity of the survey is doubtful. Lacking information about the number of employees surveyed and the number of respondents, it is impossible to assess the validity of the results. For example, if 200 employees were surveyed but only two responded, the conclusion that most of the employees ranked employee-management communication as the most pressing issue would be highly suspect. Because the argument offers no evidence that would rule out interpretations such as this, the survey results are insufficient to support the authors conclusion.
Furthermore, even if the survey accurately ranks certain issues according to level of employee concern, the highest-ranked issue in the survey might not be the issue about which employees are most concerned. Why? The improvement most needed from the point of view of the employees might not have appeared as one of the choices on the survey. For example, if the list of improvements presented on the survey was created by management rather than by the employees, then the issues of greatest concern to the employees might not be included on the list. Lacking information about how the survey was prepared, it is impossible to assess its reliability. Consequently, any conclusion based on it is highly questionable.
In conclusion, the directors conclusion is not well-founded. To strengthen the argument, additional information regarding the way in which the employee survey was prepared and conducted is required.
67. The following appeared in an article in a travel magazine.
After the airline industry began requiring airlines to report their on-time rates, Speedee Airlines achieved the number one on-time rate, with over 89 percent of its flights arriving on time each month. And now Speedee is offering more flights to more destinations than ever before. Clearly, Speedee is the best choice for todays business traveler.
旅游杂志的文章：
航空工业开始要求航空公司报告他们的准时率以后，Speedee航空公司达到准时率最高，每月他的航次有超过89%都准时到达。现在，Speedee提供了更多的航次到更多的地方。显然，Speedee是今天的商务旅行者最好的选择。
1. 提供了更多航次，准时率可能下降。
2. 准时不是最好选择的唯一标准。服务，价格也很重要。
3. 没有说到底几个月。如果报告只有两个月，不足以说明问题。其他公司的准时率说不定正在稳步上升
4. 由于是航空公司自己报告，数据可能被扭曲: We can image that the main purpose of airline industry to require on-times rates report is to identify and award the best companies, it is easy to suppose that the Speedee Airlines, which can benefit from its report, give unfair and inaccurate date.
A travel magazine article claims that Speedee Airlines is the best choice for todays business traveler. To support this claim, the author points out that Speedee has ranked first in terms of on-time arrival rate since the airline industry began requiring airlines to report their on-time rates. The claim is also based on the assertion that Speedee new offers more flights to more destination than ever before. This argument suffers from several critical flaws.
First of all, the claim relies on a couple of unwarranted assumptions. One assumption is that on-time rates, number of flights, and destination choices are the only features of airlines service that determine how a particular airline would rank overall for a business traveler. However, the author of this article ignores other factors such as fare prices and discounts, safety record, baggage-handing, and in-flight amenities. Another assumption is that Speedees overall on-time record affects business and no-business travelers equally. However, this is not necessarily the case. Speedee may have a poorer record for commuter flights, which are popular among business travelers, than for other flights. If so, the conclusion that Speedee is the best choice for the business traveler would be seriously undermined.
Secondly, the authors claim that Speedee now offers more flights to more destinations than ever before is too vague to be meaningful. We are not informed how many flights or how many destinations were previously offered or how many are offered now. Moreover, the article makes no comparison with other airlines regarding these features. Without these comparisons, the claim is worthless as a reason for choosing Speedee over another airline.
Thirdly, the article fails to indicate how long ago the industry began requiring airlines to report on-time rates. If the requirement was imposed recently, then the brief reporting period may be insufficient to show that the airlines relative on-time performance will continue in the future. Moreover, the article fails to provide evidence that all airlines, regardless of on-time record, actually reported, or that the reports are accurate.
In conclusion, the articles claim that Speedee is the best choice for the business traveler is unsubstantiated and may be too hasty. To better evaluate the articles claim, we need more information about Speedee;s other features that contribute to its overall appeal, about its on-time record for commuter flights specifically, and about the integrity and length of the reporting upon which the ranking was based.