GMAT考试写作指导：Argument范文七

会计考友

65.        In this memorandum, the vice president of Road Food suggests that the company
3 A/ ~: o/ [4 a1 r% G7 emotivate its advertising agency to perform better by basing the agency's pay on the
( o  Q5 P9 _/ {4 n# f$ P" o3 pRoad Food's profits. In support of this suggestion, the vice president points out that
8 M- ]7 }7 Y( `8 |2 K* T% Malthough Road Food initially thought the ad agency was following company
) z2 {+ J! l1 O; u6 S* @recommendations, competitor-Street Eats earned higher profits last year. The vice
; V# x( [' ^$ V; `president also notes that Street Eats has fewer restaurants than Road Food, and that
' p. \. }% I: B# V6 b. XRoad Food spent nearly as much money on advertising as Street Eats did. This
: Q/ \  ~5 p$ z/ l' q! b. iargument is unconvincing, since it relies on dubious assumptions and comparisons.
      First, the vice president assumes that the ad campaign caused the low profits.
However, the vice president ignores many other factors that contribute to profitability.
6 z+ ~9 h# d# p4 y9 nIn particular, the fact that Road Food has been spending less advertising money per
restaurant than Street Eats suggests that its unwillingness to spend more may be the
main reason for disappointing profits.
      Second, the author implies that the ad agency failed to implement Road Food's
guidelines, and that this failure was the reason for disappointing profits. However, it is
equally possible that the ad agency faithfully followed all suggestions from Road Food,
; ~# v0 g9 o. \+ }9 C' W  yand that those suggestions were the cause of the disappointing profits. In this respect,
+ T1 R% k; e, F' z; z! Jthe author unfairly shifts blame from Road Food to the ad agency.
2 Q/ h7 B. N" ]! v! X( ?+ ^      Third, the author's comparison between Road Food and Street Eats is less relevant
than a comparison between Road Food's own profits prior to its latest ad campaign and
  r- }9 }4 s, H3 f: w% {, ]  A# hits profits during this campaign. Comparing its own profits during these time periods
would more accurately reflect the ad agency's effectiveness than comparing profits of
! ]! ]. a% n. G4 \! Ctwo different companies.
0 Q" c0 v8 @3 F      Finally, the author assumes that the ad agency will be more motivated if its fee is
based on Road Food profits. However, the author does not support this claim. In fact,
% i* G. |4 c; b+ ugiven that Road Food's profits have been lower than expected, it is just as likely that the
ad agency would be less motivated by the suggested fee structure than by some other
# t9 w. ^9 K  W. A* lfee structure.
      In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the vice
president must provide evidence that the ad campaign caused last year's disappointing
9 ]$ S, R8 ?: J5 Z, z: p% L% @6 [profits, and must examine and rule out other factors that may have contributed to
disappointing profits.