argument 32题目，求建议，求拍

zhanghaolin · 发表于 2012-10-28 23:04:43

32. The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Quiot Manufacturing.

"During the past year, Quiot Manufacturing had 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than at the nearby Panoply Industries plant, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. Experts say that significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents are fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers. Therefore, to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents at Quiot and thereby increase productivity, we should shorten each of our three work shifts by one hour so that employees will get adequate amounts of sleep."

Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

In the memo, the vice president recommends that Quiot Manufacturing should shorten work shifts by one hour in order to reduce the number of accidents and increase productivity. To support the recommendation, the author cites the following as evidence: (1) 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than Panoply Industries' where work shifts are one hour shorter; (2) experts say that factors in many on-the-job accidents are fatigue and less sleep. The argument seems to be reasonable and well-presented at first glance; however, I am afraid it can hardly bear further consideration because the author ignores some other factors which can cause the accidents and fails to investigate the possible differences between two companies.

First and foremost, the comparison of accident rate is only effective when two objects are in the same industries. But he neither confirms that the two companies are in the same industries nor provides any information about the similarly and differences between two plants. It is not surprising that the companies of some dangerous industries have higher accident rate because of the natural of the business. For example, the data from toxic chemical industry and toys processing industry are not comparable because there are huge differences of natural of work and working strength between them. Perhaps the work in Quiot is heavier (such as textile industries which need more physical labor) or more dangerous than Panoply that higher accident rate is inevitable no matter whether the periods between work shifts are longer or shorter.

Furthermore, it is inconvincible that the author attributes the high accident rate in Quiot Manufacturing to only one possible reason. Even though I concede that the experts' words cited in the memo are reasonable in somehow, there is no data in Quiot Manufacturing which can directly prove the existence of fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers that leads to accidents. Moreover, there still exist some other important factors. Considering that it is a manufacturing plant in this case, we may ask the following questions: are the employees' protective gears qualified and effective? Is the working environment there suitable for working and without interference, such as light pollution or noises? What is the quality of instruments of production? How many accidents in Quiot Manufacturing are related to the quality defects of instruments? Before conducting surveys to answer these questions, the vice president should not simply attribute all accidents to fatigue.

Last but not the least, even though the majority of accidents in Quiot Manufacturing are closely related to fatigue, the author cannot assure that the same method used in Panoply Industries is suitable and effective here. For instance, if the new policy is implemented, whether the workers in Quiot Manufacturing will use the spare one hour to rest or sleep is open to doubt. Merely shorten the work shifts might not sufficiently ensure the quality of the workers’ rest. Other facilities, such as cafés or gyms, should be taken into consideration by the author. However, if the study shows that such measures are necessary, the author should take account of the cost of them and reconsider the problem of profits.

To sum up, after pointing out so many obvious flaws in the memo, we can say that the evidence cited by the author can hardly be relied on. Before reaching a final conclusion, the author should make comprehensive investigation on the specific situations of both companies and conduct survey of all possible reasons to find out the real reason to the high accident rate in Quiot Manufacturing.

普渡哥 · 发表于 2012-10-29 07:03:04

写的挺好的。

Furthermore, it is inconvincible that the author attributes the high accident rate in Quiot Manufacturing to only one possible reason.

这句话有点语法问题

竹林中人 · 发表于 2012-10-29 22:49:49

LZ需要对题目的那个指引作出回应。

竹林中人 · 发表于 2012-10-29 22:50:26

整体上问题不大。占个座，明早上再细读

zhanghaolin · 发表于 2012-10-30 00:16:34

如何给那个指引作出回应，还麻烦竹林中人给个范例学习一下。

竹林中人 · 发表于 2012-10-30 09:42:40

题目要求中有 the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument，所以你在文章的某些位置，比如第一段下结论的时候，中间段落分析题目存在的漏洞的时候，就要说下题目到底缺什么前提或者假设。

zhanghaolin · 发表于 2012-10-30 10:05:22

如果这样的话，那么第一段不是显得过于臃肿了么？

竹林中人 · 发表于 2012-10-30 14:11:50

如果这样的话，那么第一段不是显得过于臃肿了么？

-- by 会员 zhanghaolin (2012/10/30 10:05:22)

所以在第一段中你把题目的依据那么一条条的单列出来是不太好的，而最好能压缩组织串起来起来，然后你表明自己态度的句子可以就是对instruction的回应，只是要把表述方式改下

[作文互改] argument 32题目，求建议，求拍

所属分类: GRE考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()