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"Butter has now been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States.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. "

嘉文博译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In this argument, the arguer explains that butter has been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States.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)

参考译文

下述文字摘自一封致某家市报的信函：

在美国西南部幸福饼屋餐馆里，黄油已被麦淇淋(人造黄油)所取代。只有约百分之二的顾客有不满之辞，换言之，100个人中有98人对这种变化都感到满意。再者，许多服务生声称，一些仍然要黄油的顾客在被提供麦淇淋时并没有表示不满。显然，这些顾客要么是不能区别麦淇淋和黄油，要么就是他们用"黄油"一词既表示黄油又表示麦淇淋。因此，为了避免购买黄油的昂贵花费，幸福饼屋公司应该把这一节省费用的变化推广到东南部和东北部的餐馆

在这段论证中，论证者指出，在美国西南部的幸福饼屋餐馆里，黄油已被麦淇淋所取代，他/她然后高兴地说只有百分之二的顾客有不满之辞，因而100个人中有98个人都对这一变化感到满意。论证者进而说道，一些顾客要黄油时，虽然被提供麦淇淋，但也并不抱怨，所以这些顾客要么是无法区别两者，要么就是用"黄油"一词既表示真黄油，也表示麦淇淋。他/她最后得出结论：该连锁餐馆应该在东南部和东北部推广这一节省费用的变化。这一论证不能令人信服，因为它含有几处严重的谬误。

首先，论证者说因为只有百分之二的顾客有不满之辞，所以其余百分之九十八的人肯定是满意的。这在逻辑上是错误的。没有证据说明其余百分之九十八的人是怎样想的，因为他们什么也没有说。尽管有一些人对此的确漠不关心，但是很可能他们既不满意又没说什么。一般地，人们是不愿意把不满表达出来的。 他们可能不会抱怨吃了麦淇淋而没有吃到黄油，但他们更可能干脆再也不来这家连锁餐馆用餐了。此外，人们可能已注意到食物的味道变了，可能比以前更糟了，但不能确信为什么，所以不能对这样的变化表示不满。将不抱怨的人都假定为是满意的，这是该论证的一个严重失误。

其次，论证者声称，许多服务生说一些顾客仍然要黄油，但在被提供麦淇淋时并没有表示不满之辞，因此他们肯定是不能区别两者，或用"黄油"一词既表示黄油，也表示麦淇淋。这里，论证再次不合逻辑，或者充其量也是非常无力。如前所述，一般地，人们是不愿总把不满表达出来的，尤其是在他们已经要了黄油"麻烦"了他人的情况下。如果抱怨说服务生给他们端来的是麦淇淋而不是黄油，这会令人感到他们是难以侍候的顾客。论述者假定顾客不知道麦淇淋和黄油之间的区别，并且由此假定顾客是满意的，这是一个致命性错误，会导致生意和收益的下降。顾客是否能将黄油和麦淇淋区分清楚，以及他们是否用"黄油"一词既指真黄油又指麦淇淋，在此之间决不是一个简单的选择问题。会有许多其他的可能性，最糟糕的情况是顾客由于麦淇淋替代了黄油而不喜欢这种食物，因而再也不来这里就餐了。所以论证者的这一说法，又是一个严重的错误。