标题: 各位大神看过来，在这里在这里，求批改！机经练习的~ [打印本页] 作者: 皮纳酱酱淇淇仔 时间: 2012-10-22 13:01 标题: 各位大神看过来，在这里在这里，求批改！机经练习的~ 2.Avia Airline 的顾客投诉 The following appeared in an Avia Airlines departmental memorandum: “On average, 9 out of every 1,000 passengers who traveled on AviaAirlines last year filed a complaint about our baggage-handling procedures.This means that although some 1 percent of our passengers were unhappy withthose procedures, the overwhelming majority were quite satisfied with them;thus it would appear that a review of the procedures is not important to ourgoal of maintaining or increasing the number of Avia’s passengers.” Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Merelybased on gratuitous assumption and dubious evidence, the statement draws aconclusion that a review of the procedures in Avia Airlines isnot important to the goal of maintaining or increasing the number of passengers.To substantiate this argument, the author points out that there were nine outof a thousand passengers travelling on Avia Airlines filed a complaint aboutbaggage-handling procedures in last year. In addition, he indicates that thedata suggests a satisfied attitude to the procedures by the majority of itspassengers. At first glance, the argument seems to be somewhat convincing, butfurther reflection reveals that it omits some substantial concerns that shouldbe addressed to substantiate this argument. In my point of view, the argument suffersfrom three logical flaws.
Thethreshold problem of this argument is its underlying assumption that the onepercent of dissatisfaction equals to the satisfaction by overall passengers.However, this is not the case, nor does the author gives a deeper look at theissue. It is entirely possible that there are many passengers who areunsatisfied with the complex baggage handling procedures but do not filed thisattitude. Therefore, to make the argument more logical, the author would haveto cite more information to support that the passengers will absolutely filethe dissatisfaction about the complex procedures when they face such problems.
Inthe second place, even if we grant the factor discussed above, the argumentfalsely assumes that the report of last year is representative for the future.However, it is very likely that the dissatisfaction will be filed increasinglyyear by year. Thus, the low unsatisfied rate of the past provides unwarrantedevidence for the future low rate. If the author had given more demonstrationthat the future number of filed dissatisfaction about baggage handling will bethe same as the number of past year.
Inthe third place, the author hastily claims that customers’ satisfaction about baggagehandling procedures can maintain or increase customers. But this is by no meansreasonable. Customers may pay more attention to other factors rather thanwhether the procedures are complicated in an airline. For example, customersprefer the airplanes with lower price, comfortable flight condition and betterservice attitudes. Therefore, to make the argument more reliable, the authorwould have to state explicitly that the satisfaction will guarantee thecustomer choose Aice’s flignts.
Tosum up, the argument fails to demonstrate that a review of the procedures inAvia Airlines is not important to the goal of maintaining or increasing thenumber of passengers, because the information cited in the analysis does notlend a strong support to what the author maintains. To make the argument morepersuasive, the author would have to provide concrete evidence that thepassengers will file the dissatisfaction if they feel unsatisfied about thebaggage handling procedures. Additionally, the author have to state explicitlythat the low filed dissatisfaction of last year is representative for thefuture. Moreover, the author should demonstrate that the satisfaction willretain passengers. Therefore, if the argument had included all factorsdiscussed above, the author would have become more thorough and logicallyacceptable. 作者: 皮纳酱酱淇淇仔 时间: 2012-10-22 14:10
3进行人道主义捐助是不是可以激励员工 The following appeared in a memorandum from the head of a human resources department at a major automobile manufacturing company to the company's managers: “Studies have found that employees of not-for-profit organizations and charities are often more highly motivated than employees of for-profit corporations to perform well at work when their performance is not being monitored or evaluated. Interviews with employees of not-for-profit organizations suggest that the reason for their greater motivation is the belief that their work helps to improve society. Because they believe in the importance of their work, they have personal reasons to perform well, even when no financial reward is present. Thus, if our corporation began donating a significant portion of its profits to humanitarian causes, our employees’ motivation and productivity would increase substantially and our overall profits would increase as well.” Discuss how well reasoned . . .etc.
Merely based on gratuitous assumption and dubious evidence, the statement draws a conclusion that the for-profit company will gain employees’ motivation and productivity by donating a significant portion of its profits to humanitarian causes. To substantiate this conclusion, the arguer points out that the employees of not-for-profit organizations and charities are always more highly motivated than employees of for-profit corporations to perform well at work when are not being monitored. In addition, he cites the result of an interview that the reason for such greater motivation is due to the belief of the importance and significance of their works. At first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it omits some substantial concerns that should be addressed to support the conclusion. In my point of view, the argument suffers from two logical flaws.
The threshold problem of this statement is its underlying assumption that the for-profit will definitely achieve the same positive result as the not-for-profit company when makes the employees’ work meaningful. However, the employees in the for-profit company may not feel motivated by donating to the humanitarian causes. For example, the employees may feel that less money would be left for work after donating, in other words, donation may restrict the available resources they are using. Thus, these workers would unexpectedly feel motivated, and their productivity would also be negatively affected. To make the argument more convincing, the author would have to provide more information to support the idea that employees of for-profit corporations will get the significance of their work and become more productive.
In the second place, even if we grant the factor discussed above, the argument hastily assumes that the realization of importance of their work is the only reason for higher motivation in not-for-profit organizations, according to the interview. However, this is not the case, nor does the author gives a deeper look at the issue. The high motivation of employees to perform well at wok when they are not inspected can be entirely caused by the feeling of trust by the management. There is no concrete evidence demonstrates that the interviewees in the survey are not representative for all the employees who feel Work significance more than a feeling of trust. Additionally, it is entirely possible that the high motivation is contributed by the combination of these two factors. Therefore, to make the argument more persuasive, the arguer would have to state explicitly that the motivation is duly caused by the feeling of work importance.
To sum up, the statement fails to conclude that by donating to humanitarian causes, the for-profit corporations will gain employee motivation and productivity as the not-for-profit company, because the information cited in the analysis does not lend a strong support to what the author maintains. To make the argument more reliable, the arguer would have to clarify that the high motivation in not-for-profit organizations is caused by the feeling of work importance with concrete evidence. Additionally, the arguer should demonstrate that the employees in for-profit-companies will feel strong motivated when the company donates to humanitarian causes. If the arguer has included the factors discussed above, the argument would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.作者: 皮纳酱酱淇淇仔 时间: 2012-10-23 12:03
怎么没有人回复，，，？自己顶一下！作者: qiabu 时间: 2012-10-23 16:14
关心作文的考生太少了，你的作文字数够，有攻击就行了。作者: 皮纳酱酱淇淇仔 时间: 2012-10-25 12:40
