新GRE写作备考：Argument模板和漂亮句型的整理

　　Argument 67: The following is a memorandum written by the director of personnel to the president of the Cedar Corporation.
　　"It would be a mistake to rehire the Good-Taste Company to supply the food in our employee cafeteria next year. It is the second most expensive caterer in the city. In addition, its prices have risen in each of the last three years, and it refuses to provide meals for people on special diets. Just last month three employees complained to me that they no longer eat in the cafeteria because they find the experience unbearable. Our company should instead hire Discount Foods. Discount is a family-owned local company and it offers a varied menu of fish and poultry. I recently tasted a sample lunch at one of the many companies that Discount serves and it was delicious—an indication that hiring Discount will lead to improved employee satisfaction."

　　[建议，更换供应商]
　　In this argument, the arguer advocates that the Cedar Corporation should hire Discount Foods, a family-owned local company that offers a varied menu of fish and poultry, instead of the Good-Taste Company, the present supplier of food in Cedar's employee cafeteria. This recommendation is based on the observation that the Good-Taste is expensive, that its prices have kept rising, that it does not serve special diets, and that three employees complained about it. Meanwhile, the arguer assumes Discount to be a better choice for Cedar because a sample lunch of this company that the arguer happened to taste was delicious. This argument is problematic for two reasons.
　　The major problem with this argument is that the arguer fails to convince us that Cedar's present supplier the Good-Taste should be fired. First, the fact that the Good-Taste is the second most expensive caterer in the city may be due to its better foods, quality service and high reputation in this industry. Second, the fact that its prices have been rising for the last three years may be due to nationwide inflation or the rising cost in the food industry. Third, the fact that Good-Taste refuses to serve special diets does not indicate that it cannot meet the needs of Cedar Corporation unless the arguer can demonstrate that Good-Taste served special diets at first and now it refuses to do so, hence disappointing Cedar's employees, and that many or most of Cedar's employees are on special diets. Finally, the arguer fails to explain why three employees complained, which makes it impossible for us to evaluate the overall service of Good-Taste. Maybe these three people are those few on special diets. Even if they have every reason to complain about the foods or service of the supplier on a certain day, these three people's opinion lacks the necessary representativeness based on which we can make any general judgment concerning the overall performance of Good-Taste.
　　Another point worth considering is the arguer's hasty generalization. We are informed that Discount serves fish and poultry, but we do not know whether Cedar's employees all prefer this limited menu. We can believe that one sample lunch that the arguer happened to taste was indeed delicious, but based on this slim information, we can never evaluate the overall performance of Discount.
　　To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer must present more facts that Good-Taste has indeed failed to meet the requirements of Cedar Corporation. To solidify the argument, the arguer would have to produce more evidence concerning the foods and service of Discount and how they can better meet the needs of Cedar's employees.