各位NN, 这是我的第二次作文AA, 参考的是DREAMBOX NN 的模版. ffice
ffice" />
写完后对照AWA224, 觉得有些不同. 几个问题要请教.
1. 是不是最好照搬AWA224中AA范文中所提出的FLAWS, 而不再明确提出具体的LOGICAL FLAW.
2. 写完后总觉得好象原文(题干)中的原句照抄过多, 甚至超过了总篇幅的一半, 有些担心判官的感受. 这会否有些不妥.
3. AWA224 对此题挑出3个不妥. 是否要把全部的FLAWS都挑出, 还是挑两个最明显的即可? 我写的两个FLAWS就与范文的不一致.
4. 不麻烦的话, 请指点拙作一二.
Thanks.
The following appeared in the editorial section of a corporate newsletter.
“The common notion that workers are generally apathetic about management issues is false, or at least outdated: a recently published survey indicates that 79 percent of the nearly 1,200 workers who responded to survey questionnaires expressed a high level of interest in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs.”
The author of the argument is trying to establish that the common notion that workers are generally apathetic about management issues is false. In order to support the conclusion, the author assumes that 79 percent of the nearly 1200 workers who responded to survey questionnaires expressed a high level of interest in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs. Closely examining the author's logic and reasoning, we find neither of these reasons provides sufficient support for the conclusion and this argument suffers two serious logical flaws.
First of all, the argument relies on the groundless assumption that the reason why the common notion that workers are generally apathetic about the management issues is false or outdated is because 79 percent of the 1200 workers who responded to the survey questionnaires express high level of interest in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs. The author here commits " Insufficient Sample Fallacy ". The conclusion refers to the general workers' attitude towards the management issues, while no evidence in the newsletter support the assumption that 79 percent of the 1200 workers chosen in the survey mentioned in the newsletter can be so representative that their attitude reflects the overall worker's attitude towards management issues. Therefore, without providing more information explaining the representative nature of the 1200 workers chosen, the author can not conclusively assert that the common notion mentioned above is false or at least outdated.
Second, the author assumes that because the 79 percent of the 1200 workers expressed a high level of interest in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs, the common notion that workers are generally apathetic about management issue is false, or at least outdated. The author here commits " The Fallacy of Faulty Analogy ". Throughout the argument, no evidence or explanation is provided to support that workers' interest in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs lead to their interest in management issues. It is possible that the workers participate the survey are in an industry that is experiencing tremendous reform; it is also possible that the survey is hold just after a recession with a lot of economic conditions so unstable that workers are worried about their future. Any of these scenarios, if true, would show that the 79 percent of the 1200 workers' interests in the topic of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs do not necessarily mean that the workers are not apathetic about management issues.
In conclusion, the argument is ineffective because the author makes the above-mentioned flaws. The author should strengthen the conclusion that the common notion that workers are generally apathetic about management issues is false or at least outdated by demonstrating the workers participating the survey are representative and by showing that the workers also concern other management issues rather than the issue directly affecting their welfare.
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2004-3-23 15:49:00
楼主
