case study是留学生常见的一种论文格式，常称为案例分析。那么case study怎么写呢？案例分析与一般的写作不同，它需要在一开始就阐述出你的结论,然后再给出得出该结论的详尽理由和依据；而并非像写小说一样，若不读到最后一页就不能揭开谜团。老师们更多关心的是你是如何阐述问题，清晰的叙述你的分析过程，选择特定解决方法的理由以及最后设计出的那套来实施你的解决方案的计划。而并不是要看你花洋洋篇幅来证明你的结论如何正确!以一糙言蔽之,写CASE STUDY追求的是过程而不是结果。
Case Study 1：
The following appeared as part of an article in a daily newspaper. “The computerized onboard warning system that will be installed in commercial airliners will virtually solve the problem of midair plane collisions. One plane’s warning system can receive signals from another’s transponder--a radio set that signals a plane’s course--in order to determine the likelihood of a collision and recommend evasive action.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative, explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The argument that this warning system will virtually solve the problem of midair plane collisions omits some mportant concerns that be addressed to substantiate the argument. The statement that follows the des cription of what this warning system will do simply describes the system and how it operates. This alone does not constitute a logical argument in favor of the warning system, and it certainly does not provide support or proof of the main argument.
Most conspicuously, the argument does not address the cause of the problem of air plane collisions, the use of the system by pilots and flight specialists, or who is involved in the midair plane collisions. First, the argument assumes that the cause of the problem is that the planes’ courses, the likelihood of collisions, and actions to avoid collisions are unknown or inaccurate. But if the cause of the problem of midair plane collisions is that pilots are not paying attention to their computer systems or flight operations, the warning system will not solve the collision problem.
Second, the argument never addresses the interface between individuals and the system and how this will affect the warning system’s objective of obliterating the problem of collisions. If the pilot or flight specialist does not conform to what the warning system suggests, air collisions will not be avoided. Finally, if planes other than commercial airliners re involved in the collisions, the problem of these collisions cannot be solved by a warning system that will not be installed on non-commercial airliners. The argument also does not address what would happen in the event that the warning system collapsed, falls, or does not work properly.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is not sound or persuasive. If it included the items discussed above instead of solely explaining what the system supposedly does, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.
Case Study 2：
The following appeared in an Avia Airlines departmental memorandum: “On average, 9 out of every 1000 passengers who traveled on Avia Airlines in 1993 filed a complaint about our luggage-handing procedures. This means
that although some 1 percent of our passengers were unhappy with those procedures, the overwhelming majority were quite satisfied with them; thus it would appear that a review of the procedures is not important to our goal of maintaining or increasing the number of Avia's passengers.” Discuss how logically convincing you find this argument. In explaining your point of view, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. Also discuss what, if anything, would make the argument more sound and persuasive, or would help you to better evaluate its conclusion.
In this argument, the arguer concludes that a review of Avia Airline's baggage-handling procedures will not further its goal of maintaining or increasing the number of Avia passengers. To support this conclusion, the arguer points out that only one percent of passengers who traveled on Avia last year filed a complaint. In addition, the arguer reasons that the great majority of Avia passengers are happy with baggage handling at the airline. This argument suffers from two critical flaws. In the first place, the argument turns on the assumption that the 99 percent of Avia passengers who did not complain were happy with the airline's baggage-handling procedures. However, the arguer provides no evidence to support this assumption. The fact that, on average, 9 out of 1000 passengers took the time and effort to formally complain indicates nothing about the experiences or attitudes of the remaining 991. It is possible that many passengers were displeased but too busy to formally complain, while others had no opinion at all. Lacking more complete information about passengers' attitudes, we cannot assume that the great majority of passengers who did not complain were happy.
In the second place, in the absence of information about the number of passengers per flight and about the complaint records of competing airlines, the statistics presented in the memorandum might distort the seriousness of the problem. Given that most modern aircrafts carry as many as 300 to 500 passengers, it is possible that Avia received as many as 4 or 5 complaints per flight. The arguer unfairly trivializes this record. Moreover, the arguer fails to compare Avia's record with those of its competitors. It is possible that a particular competitor received virtually no baggage-handling complaints last year. If so, Avia's one percent complaint rate might be significant enough to motivate customers to switch to another airline. In conclusion, the arguer fails to demonstrate that a review of the baggage-
handling procedures at Avia Airlines is not needed to maintain or increase the number of Avia's passengers. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide evidence that most Avia passengers last year were indeed happy with baggage-handling procedures. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the numbers of Avia passengers per flight last year and about the baggage-handling records of Avia's competitors.
如果您对于case study很陌生或者需要case study代写相关服务，请点击：