Arg 32 3G伤不起啊！！！拍死我得了……

choletter

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.


The vice president cites that Q plant should shorten their work shifts by one hour in order to let their employees get enough sleep.He based this conclusion on what experts say the major factors caused on-the-job accidents are fatigue and sleep deprivation and the statistic that Q had 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than at the nearby P.At the first glance,this memo is well-presented, however,under careful scrutiny, it contains several grave fallacies on the assumptions as well as commits a false conclusion.
To begin with,the argument is weakened by the fact that Q had 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than that of P.Since the arguer doesn't show neither accurate numbers of accidents nor the total workers in Q and P plant,it is entirely possible that there are 200 workers in Q plant which only 30 people injured at work,yet merely 50 workers in P plant with 10 people injured at work.Although Q plant's on-the-job accidents rate is higher than that of P plant,however,it is make no sense for the reason that security in Q plant is obviously much more higher than that of P plant.
Secondly,the arguer failed to indicate that Q plant should take the same method of P since he based the conclusion on the assumption that shorten one hour can decrease the accident rate.He ignores various alternative explanations. Presumably,workers in P are skillful in contrast with many novice in Q,so it is rational that the accident rate in Q are higher than P.Or manger in P takes other measures such as awards to increase their workers vigor.If this assumption is true,then there is no absolute relevance between accident rate and shorten hours.
Thirdly,on common sense,many people would believe in experts, however, experts may not be right under any circumstances. Perhaps experts conclude that significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents are fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers on the fallacious measures.For example, they may do the investigation on the time when workers are sleepy or samples they choose are not representative.
Furthermore,even if it is true that sleep deprivation and fatigue are the major factors to cause on-the-job accidents,the arguer still inconvincibly assume that shorten work shifts would increase productivity. Since we do not know whether workers would ulitilze the redundant hours to sleep or have some recreations.Maybe majority of them are fond of playing chess with others instead of sleep.Then another circumstance appears that workers may feel more fatigue after having a rest.It is totally probably that they even can't compete the previous products,let alone increasing productivity.
In conclusion,the arguer fails to conclude that Q plant should take the method that shorten work shifts by one hour to make their workers have enough sleep and increase productivity.Before any decision is made,the arguer should take more evidence to take this memo more logical and cogent.

话说有没有神马保护眼睛的好方法或者好吃的……两眼现在都不对焦了…………………………

普渡哥

第一次要用Q和P代表的时候，要这样：

Quiot(Q).....Panoply(P)

不然会给自己找麻烦。

choletter

我错了……

请问还有哪里有漏洞或者语言上有什么问题嘛？
网速慢到间歇性上网的孩子伤不起啊……