AA130－work-group supervisors of the GBS Company 理解有点困难，请帮忙－（Zeros修改标题， 见谅）

“The CoffeeCart beverage and food
service located in the lobby of our main office building is not earning enough
in sales to cover its costs, and so the cart may discontinue operating at GBS.
Given the low staff morale, as evidenced by the increase in the number of
employees leaving the company, the loss of this service could present a
problem, especially since the staff morale questionnaire showed widespread
dissatisfaction with the snack machines. Therefore, supervisors should remind
the employees in their group to patronize the cart — after all, it was leased
for their convenience so that they would not have to walk over to the cafeteria
on breaks.”

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

我的问题是：蓝色的部分就是指Cofeecart的吗？我觉得如果是的话，逻辑上是不是有问题。难道员工不满意了还要推荐去惠顾？有谁能解释一些这里面的逻辑？多谢

看到翻译是这样的：

GBS公司的工人团体监督的备忘录：

在我们的主要办公建筑的休息室内的提供饮料和食物的CoffeeCart流动车不能从销售中得到

相应的收入去抵消支出。因此这个流动车可能被从GBS中取消。由于员工士气很低，这从离开公司的员工数量增加可以看出，取消这种服务可能带来问题，特别是员工士气调查显示了对快餐车的广泛不满。因此，监督应该提醒组内的雇员给流动车付款，毕竟租借流动车是为了员工的方便，使他们不用在工休时走去自助餐厅。

偶怎么看不到兰色的部分？

ARGUMENT 的要求就是让你找逻辑错误啊。

题目的意思是：

1餐车亏本了，不能赢利

2员工士气低落

3普遍对零食售货机不满

4流动餐车是为了方便员工而准备的

由1234员工应该资助流动餐车

逻辑错误挺多的呀：

1让餐车赢利的办法不只是由员工资助一种

2没有论据支持保留餐车就会提高士气

3零食售货机不满并不意味着对流动餐车就满意，可能取消之后延长break的时间让员工去cafeteria更好

AA130的翻译是在哪里找的呀？

个人觉得不是,欢迎大家继续讨论

snack machine 在我看来应该是很多商场和医院里面也有的那种贩售机是固定的.而流动餐车应该有个人负责在那里卖吧.

AA130的翻译是从哪个链接找的呢?还请不吝赐教

I downloaded from CD, I think.

If it is not on CD, you may send your email address to my CD mailbox so that I can email the translation to you.

In this article the author concludes that supervisors should make sense to let employees to patronize the cart in ordet to continue its operation. To buttress his argument, the author reasons that increase in the number of employees leaving the company due to the loss of this service. Moreover, the author quotes the result of the staff morale questionnaire that the widespread dissatisfaction with the snack machines. In addition, the author reasons that the cart was leased for employees’ convenience. The author’s agrument seems to be solid and reasonable at the first sight, however, we can find out its illogical weaknesses if we look deeper into this argument. I will point out why the argument is problematic for several reasons.

In the first place, the author unfairly predicts that the low staff morale results from the loss of this service as an assumption. This is to say, the author cites that such two things coincide with each other. Yet we cannot readily come to the conclusion that the low staff morale and the loss of this service actually have causal relationship, as the evidence the author provides is not sufficient. It is entirely possible that more and more working pressure is an important causative factor in the low staff. Therefore, to eastablish the causal relationship between these events, it would be necessary for the author to exam and eliminate other possible factors that might accout for this phenomenon.

In the second place, the author quotes the result of the staff morale questionnaire to solidify his argument. But the methodology of this questionnaire is unstated. Furthermore, the representativeness of this questionnaire is open to doubt because the author fails to provide sufficient information to convince us. We can image that this investigation is conducted only in several special departments of this company, in which the employees are more likely to be low morale because special work circumstance and contents. For example, the more the employees receive complaints from clients, the lower their morale.

Finally, the author assumes that the operation of cart offers employees convenience. Still as far as I concerned, it is hasty to draw such a point. The majority of employees do consider a walk after several tight work hours not a hurdle but a good chance to relax.

文章比较好写，就是感觉在视觉上有点虎头蛇尾了，不过好歹有400多字，enough

KUIKUI G真强啊！！

A ZA...