今天开始练习写作，写了两篇高频(AI087&AA028)，还请斑斑和各位点评指导

fido11

AI 087
“As technologies and the demand for certainservices change, many workers will lose their jobs. The responsibility forthose people to adjust to such change should belong to the individual worker,not to government or to business.”
Discuss the extent to which you agree ordisagree with the opinion stated above. Support your position with specificreasons and/or examples drawn from your reading, your observations, or your ownexperience.

Many workers will lose their jobs astechnologies and the demand for certain services change. Some economists pointout that the responsibility lies with the individual workers, who lost theirjobs, rather than government or business to adjust to such change. This assertion is reasonable to some extent, but the betterway should be: while individual worker take primary responsibility to developnew skills and find new jobs, both government and business should share theobligation to provide necessary assistance.

Individual worker should take the primaryresponsibility for adjusting to job obsolescence. Especially in nowadays,people can easily find ways, such as online training, and Advance Learning(Continuing Education), to keep up with new technologies, to develop new skillsets and to change to new direction of business. Merely rely on the help fromgovernment or business, the individual worker will become passive and loseenterprise. “God helps those who help themselves”.

However, government, the policy maker andmarket supervisor, should bear some of the responsibility as well. Especiallyif the changes result from the government policies, such as UK’s banning incandescentbulbs at end of 2012 and switching to low-energy bulbs and China’s banning PHS(Personal Handy-Phone System) to clear spectrum resources for 3G (ThirdGeneration) mobile system, the government should provide assistance forindividuals’ adjustment to change—for example, by providing unemploymentinsurance, by sharing industry employment trends data and analysis and bymaking related regulations.

Moreover, the business and the industry shouldalso assume some of the responsibility. Since it is the business that displacethe workers and benefit from it, the business have the duty to help thedisplaced workers in term of on-job-training as well as compensation forfurther education. Furthermore, the business’s actions are related to itsreputation in the market, the initiative and responsive attitude towards thechange and worker displacement can help the business win heart from itsconsumers: Earlier this year in China, Nokia’s laying off its 170 employees andcoldness toward them provided us a negative example.

In conclusion, while individual workers takeprimary responsibility to adjust to future job changes, both government andbusiness should share the obligation to provide necessary assistance that helpdisplaced workers to develop new skill sets and find new jobs.


AA028.The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper.
“Commuter use of the new subway trainis exceeding the transit company’s projections. However, commuter use of theshuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below theprojected volume. If the transit company expects commuters to ride the shuttlebuses to the subway rather than drive there, it must either reduce the shuttlebus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations.”

Theconclusion in this argument is that the transit company must either reduce faresof the shuttle bus or raise the parking fees at the sub way stations. Thereason offered to support the conclusion is that commuter use of the new subwaytrain is exceeding the transit company’s projections while commuter use of theshuttle buses to the subway station is below the projected volume. The author’sargument appears to be convincing, but further analysis reveals that theconclusion is based on some dubious assumptions and the reasoning is biased dueto inadequacy and partiality in the nature of the evidence provided to justifythe conclusion. A careful examination would review how groundless thisconclusion is.

Inthe first place, the author draws the whole conclusion on ground of the transitcompany’s “projections”. The key information about the projections such as“when the projections are conducted”, “what purpose they are for” , and “whoand based on what assumption to make the projections” are lacking, so it isimpossible to assess the reliability of the projections,  let alone draw the conclusion that based onthe projections.

Inthe second place, the author has focused only on the bus fares and parkingfares. A more detailed analysis would reveal that other factor outweigh thefactor on which the author focuses.  Forexample, the scheduling of shuttle bus or the rout of the bus is not so convenientfor the commuters to take, the cleanness of the bus is not satisfying, or mostpeople simply prefer to take taxi for the privacy and quietness. Lacking a morecomprehensive analysis of other causes, it is indiscreet for the author toclaim the fares can solely determine commuters’ transit means.

Lastbut not least, the author unfairly assumes that the reader must make aneither-or choice. However, the argument fails to rule out possibility that reducingshuttle bus fares and raising parking fees together. Moreover, if the author iswrong in the assumption that the fares are the only determining factors, thusthe more effective solution might include a complex of other elements—such asthe rout, scheduling and cleanness of the shuttle buses I mentioned. In anyevent, the author provides no justifications for the mutual exclusive choiceimposed on the reader.

Toconclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Accordingly, it isimprudent for the author to claim that the transit company must either reducefares of the shuttle bus or raise the parking fees at the sub way stations toattract more commuters to ride shuttle busses. To make the argument morelogically acceptable, the author would have to show the transit company’s“projections” are sound. In addition, to solidify the conclusion, the authorshould provide concrete evidence as well as demonstrate that other factors arenot the major reason that commuters not riding the shuttle buses. Only withmore convincing evidence could make this argument more than just emotionalappeal.