为了便于大对
The following is part of a business plan created by the management of the Megamart grocery store.
“Our total sales have increased this year by 20 percent since we added a pharmacy section to our grocery store. Clearly, the customer’s main concern is the convenience afforded by one-stop shopping. The surest way to increase our profits over the next couple of years, therefore, is to add a clothing department along with an automotive supplies and repair shop. We should also plan to continue adding new departments and services, such as a restaurant and a garden shop, in subsequent years. Being the only store in the area that offers such a range of services will give us a competitive advantage over other local stores.”
Megamart杂货店的管理层的商务计划：
由于我们在杂货店内加了药剂部分，今年我们的总体销售额增加了20%。显然，顾客主要关注的是一次性购物的便利性。在今后两年内提高我们的利润的最佳方法是增加一个成衣部门和一个汽车配件和维修商店。我们同时也应该在最后的纪念中继续增加新的部门和服务，比如餐馆，园艺商店。成为本地唯一的提供如此广泛服务的商店将给我们带来超越其他商店的竞争优势。
1. 总体销售额增加20%利润不一定也会相应增加
2. 销售额的增加不一定是由于增加了这个部门造成的
3. 以后是否还会有如此效果不一定。因为可能已经有企业提供更专业更优质的商品和服务。
1. 没有建立因果。sequence不能证明因果。不知道收入来自哪个section. 很可能是有其他的原因：很可能是pharmacy没有利润。利润来自其他的部分。比如食品等，质量提高，或者经济情况好，人们有更多的demand。
2. 销售额增加不一定是profit增加。
3. 错误类比：就算加入了pharmacy引起了收入提高，也不能说增加的clothing和其他也会引起收入。很可能人们不是因为convenience，而是对medicine的需要。很可能其他的，人们更愿意到special shops。
The management of the Megamart grocery store concludes that adding new departments and services is the surest way to increase profits over the next couple of years. They are led to this conclusion because of a 20 percent increase in total sates, realized after the addition of a pharmacy section to the grocery store. On the basis of this experience, they concluded that the convenience of one-stop shopping was the main concern of their customers. The management’s argument is faulty in several respects.
In the first place, the management assumes that the increase in total sales was due to the addition of the pharmacy section. However, the only evidence offered to support this conclusion is the fact that the addition of the pharmacy preceded the increase in sales. But the mere fact that the pharmacy section was added before the increase occurred is insufficient grounds to conclude that it was responsible for the increase. Many other factors could bring about this same result. Lacking a detailed analysis of the source of the sales increase, it would be sheer folly to attribute the increase to the addition of the pharmacy section.
In the second place, even if it were the case that the increase in total sales was due to the addition of the pharmacy section, this fact alone is insufficient to support the claim that adding additional departments will increase sales even further. It is quite possible that the addition of the pharmacy section increased sales simply because there was no other pharmacy in the vicinity. The additional proposed departments and services, on the other hand, might be well represented in the area and their addition might have no impact whatsoever on the profits of the store. In other words, there may be relevant differences between the pharmacy section and the additional proposed sections that preclude them from having a similar effect on the sales of the store.
In conclusion, the management’s argument is not well-reasoned. To strengthen the conclusion, the management must provide additional evidence linking the addition of the pharmacy section to the increase in total sales. It must also show that there are no exceptional reasons for the sales increase due to the pharmacy section that would not apply to the other proposed additions.
46. The following appeared in a memorandum from the directors of a security and safety consulting service.
“Our research indicates that over the past six years no incidents of employee theft have been reported within ten of the companies that have been our clients. In analyzing the security practices of these ten companies, we have further learned that each of them requires its employees to wear photo identification badges while at work. In the future, therefore, we should recommend the use of such identification badges to all of our clients.”
安全保险服务经理的备忘录：
我们的研究指出，过去的6年中作为我们客户的10家公司没有被报道出有任何事故或员工盗窃行为。分析这10家公司的安全经验，我们了解到他们每家公司都要求员工工作时佩戴有照片的身份证章。因此，未来我们将把这种身份证章推荐给我们所有的顾客。
1. 没有报道出来不一定代表没有，可能是为了公司声誉reputation fame prestige没有说也可能是因为没有发现
2. 一定是佩带了有照片的身份证起了作用吗?这个很难说。两者只是碰巧同时发生，没有必然的因果联系。
3. 不是所有公司的员工偷盗问题都是很严重的。例如服务产品提供的公司。
1. 不一定没有reported就是没发生。可能是公司出于reputation的考虑，隐瞒conceal了偷窃。
2. 没有因果关系，胸牌不一定是原因。可能是管理的比较好，员工更加cautious等等。
3. 不一定其他的公司也适用一样的政策。很可能其他的公司不适合使用胸牌——比如服务业company who provide service rather than product，顾客比较多，并不好管理。
In this argument the directors of a security-and safety-consulting service conclude that the use of photo identification badges should be recommended to all of their clients as a means to prevent employee theft. Their conclusion is based on a study revealing that ten of their previous clients who use photo identification badges have had no incidents of employee theft over the past six-year period. The directors’ recommendation is problematic in several respects.
In the first place, the directors’ argument is based on the assumption that the reason for the lack of employee theft in the ten companies was the fact that their employees wear photo identification badges. However, the evidence revealed in their research establishes only a positive correlation between the lack of theft and the requirement to wear badges; it does not establish a causal connection between them. Other factors, such as the use of surveillance cameras or spot checks of employees’ briefcases and purses could be responsible for lack of employee theft within the ten companies analyzed.
In the second place, the directors assume that employee theft is a problem that is common among their clients and about which their clients are equally concerned. However, for some of their clients this might not be a problem at all. For example, companies that sell services are much less likely to be concerned about employee theft than those who sell products. Moreover, those that sell small products would be more concerned about theft than those that sell large products. Consequently, even if wearing badges reduces employee theft, it might not be necessary for all of the firm’s clients to follow this practice.
In conclusion, the director’s recommendation is not well supported. To strengthen the conclusion they must establish a causal relation between the wearing of identification badges and the absence of employee theft. They also must establish that the firm’s clients are sufficiently similar to all profit from this practice.