GRE作文范文 Argument-24

"Butter has now been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. Only about 2 percent of customers have complained, indicating that 98 people out of 100 are happy with the change. Furthermore, many servers have reported that a number of customers who still ask for butter do not complain when they are given margarine instead. Clearly, either these customers cannot distinguish margarine from butter, or they use the term "butter" to refer to either butter or margarine. Thus, to avoid the expense of purchasing butter, the Happy Pancake House should extend this cost-saving change to its restaurants in the southeast and northeast as well. "

嘉文博譯Sample Essay

In this argument, the arguer explains that butter has been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. The arguer then contends that only two percent of customers have complained, therefore 98 out of 100 people are happy with the change. The arguer further states that a number of customer do not complain when they are given margarine when they ask for butter, so these customers either cannot distinguish the two or use the word "butter" to refer to either real butter or margarine. The arguer then comes to the conclusion that the restaurant chain should make this cost-saving change to its restaurants in the southeast and northeast as well. This argument is not convincing because it suffers from several critical fallacies.

First of all, the arguer states that because only two percent of customers have complained, the other ninety-eight percent must be happy. This clearly is faulty logic. There is no indication what the other ninety-eight percent of the people think because they simply do not say anything. While some of the people truly may not care, it is far more likely that they are not happy but choose to say nothing at all. People in general are reluctant to complain - rather than complain about margarine instead of butter, it is likely that they would just never return to the restaurant chain. Additionally, people may have noticed that the taste of the food is different, possibly even worse than before, but don't know exactly why and therefore cannot complain about the change. Merely assuming that the people who do not complain are happy is a critical flaw in the argument.

Secondly, the arguer states that many servers have reported that "a number" of customers who still ask for butter do not complain when they are given margarine instead; therefore they must not be able to distinguish between the two or use the word "butter" to refer to either butter or margarine. Here again the argument is baseless or very weak at best. As stated before, people in general are reluctant to complain, especially in the situation where they have "bothered" someone in the first place by requesting butter. To complain again that the server has brought margarine rather than butter might make them feel as if they are being difficult customers. To assume that they do not know the difference between margarine and butter is to assume that the customer is satisfied, which could be a fatal mistake leading to declining business and revenue. It is not a simple choice between whether they cannot distinguish between butter and margarine or that they use the word "butter" to refer to either one. There are many other possibilities, the worst-case scenario being that the customer does not like the food because of the taste of margarine rather than butter and never comes back. This is another critical flaw in the argument.

Finally, the arguer states that the Happy Pancake House should extend the cost-saving change to its restaurants in the southeast and northeast as well. There is no evidence presented in the argument that margarine is actually less expensive than margarine. Although the restaurant will avoid the expense of purchasing butter, they will still have the expense of purchasing margarine. Furthermore, even assuming that ninety-eight percent of the customers are happy with the change, these particular customers are located in the southwest United States. People in the southeast and northeast may have different tastes and a different reaction to butter being replaced by margarine.

In summary, the argument is based on mere assumptions - there is no direct evidence showing that Happy Pancake House customers are actually happy with the change from butter to margarine. It is highly likely that the arguer has it all wrong, and the restaurant chain should do some serious market research in all of its restaurants to determine the true impact of such a change.

(657 words)

參考譯文

下述文字摘自一封致某家市報(bào)的信函：

在美國(guó)西南部幸福餅屋餐館里，黃油已被麥淇淋(人造黃油)所取代。只有約百分之二的顧客有不滿之辭，換言之，100個(gè)人中有98人對(duì)這種變化都感到滿意。再者，許多服務(wù)生聲稱(chēng)，一些仍然要黃油的顧客在被提供麥淇淋時(shí)并沒(méi)有表示不滿。顯然，這些顧客要么是不能區(qū)別麥淇淋和黃油，要么就是他們用"黃油"一詞既表示黃油又表示麥淇淋。因此，為了避免購(gòu)買(mǎi)黃油的昂貴花費(fèi)，幸福餅屋公司應(yīng)該把這一節(jié)省費(fèi)用的變化推廣到東南部和東北部的餐館

在這段論證中，論證者指出，在美國(guó)西南部的幸福餅屋餐館里，黃油已被麥淇淋所取代，他/她然后高興地說(shuō)只有百分之二的顧客有不滿之辭，因而100個(gè)人中有98個(gè)人都對(duì)這一變化感到滿意。論證者進(jìn)而說(shuō)道，一些顧客要黃油時(shí)，雖然被提供麥淇淋，但也并不抱怨，所以這些顧客要么是無(wú)法區(qū)別兩者，要么就是用"黃油"一詞既表示真黃油，也表示麥淇淋。他/她最后得出結(jié)論：該連鎖餐館應(yīng)該在東南部和東北部推廣這一節(jié)省費(fèi)用的變化。這一論證不能令人信服，因?yàn)樗袔滋巼?yán)重的謬誤。

首先，論證者說(shuō)因?yàn)橹挥邪俜种念櫩陀胁粷M之辭，所以其余百分之九十八的人肯定是滿意的。這在邏輯上是錯(cuò)誤的。沒(méi)有證據(jù)說(shuō)明其余百分之九十八的人是怎樣想的，因?yàn)樗麄兪裁匆矝](méi)有說(shuō)。盡管有一些人對(duì)此的確漠不關(guān)心，但是很可能他們既不滿意又沒(méi)說(shuō)什么。一般地，人們是不愿意把不滿表達(dá)出來(lái)的。 他們可能不會(huì)抱怨吃了麥淇淋而沒(méi)有吃到黃油，但他們更可能干脆再也不來(lái)這家連鎖餐館用餐了。此外，人們可能已注意到食物的味道變了，可能比以前更糟了，但不能確信為什么，所以不能對(duì)這樣的變化表示不滿。將不抱怨的人都假定為是滿意的，這是該論證的一個(gè)嚴(yán)重失誤。

其次，論證者聲稱(chēng)，許多服務(wù)生說(shuō)一些顧客仍然要黃油，但在被提供麥淇淋時(shí)并沒(méi)有表示不滿之辭，因此他們肯定是不能區(qū)別兩者，或用"黃油"一詞既表示黃油，也表示麥淇淋。這里，論證再次不合邏輯，或者充其量也是非常無(wú)力。如前所述，一般地，人們是不愿總把不滿表達(dá)出來(lái)的，尤其是在他們已經(jīng)要了黃油"麻煩"了他人的情況下。如果抱怨說(shuō)服務(wù)生給他們端來(lái)的是麥淇淋而不是黃油，這會(huì)令人感到他們是難以侍候的顧客。論述者假定顧客不知道麥淇淋和黃油之間的區(qū)別，并且由此假定顧客是滿意的，這是一個(gè)致命性錯(cuò)誤，會(huì)導(dǎo)致生意和收益的下降。顧客是否能將黃油和麥淇淋區(qū)分清楚，以及他們是否用"黃油"一詞既指真黃油又指麥淇淋，在此之間決不是一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的選擇問(wèn)題。會(huì)有許多其他的可能性，最糟糕的情況是顧客由于麥淇淋替代了黃油而不喜歡這種食物，因而再也不來(lái)這里就餐了。所以論證者的這一說(shuō)法，又是一個(gè)嚴(yán)重的錯(cuò)誤。