argument 32

桌子上的梨

32 104 105 106 167

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 at Quiot and thereby increase productivity, we should shorten each of our three work shifts by one hour so that employees will get adequate amount of sleep."



The vice president cites an accident comparison between Quiot Manufacturing and Panoply Industries plant, he points out while Q' work shift are one hour longer they had 30 percent more on-the-job accidents. Based on these evidences, the author reaches a conclusion that Q should shorten their work shifts by one hour so the employees will get enough sleep. He predicts this will decrease the on-the-job accidents while increase productivity. Granted that it seems to be somewhat appealing, the argument relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands.



In the first place, the arguer presumes that all relevant circumstances involving these two companies are essentially the same, Quiot Manufacturing is analogous to Panoply Industries plant in all respects, however, this assumption is weak. For the author fails to consider and rule out some alternative explanations such as inadequate equipment maintenance or work training in QM, or the inherent hazards of QM's manufacturing processes. It is entirely possible that P's comparatively low accident rate might be attributable not to the length of its work but rather to other factors, such as superior equipment maintenance or work training. Unless the arguer can demonstrate that these and other possible scenarios are unlikely, the deduction is open to doubt.



In the second place, the arguer arrives at the conclusion before giving out any researching result regarding the cause of it. Even if QM's workers are fatigue or sleep deprived, we are not sure by cutting down one work hour workers will sleep one hour longer each night. Experience tells us, however, that this will not necessarily be the case. Just as likely, workers will adjust to the new schedule by falling asleep one hour later. Moreover, by staying up one hour later at night workers might very well engage in the sort of late night socail or even delinquent activities that would disturb their productivity at the factory. Lacking more specific information about how the workers use the additional hour, it is impossible to evaluate the reliability of the results or to make an informed recommendation.



In addition to these serious problems, even if that all the foregoing assumptions are justified, the editorial just simply assumes that Panoply Industries plant can serve as the model for Quiot Manufacturing , and neither any anecdotal evidence nor any explainable scientific evidence is provided to prove this assumption. It's quite possible that accident rates at the two companies last year were aberrations, and during other years M's accident rate was no longer, or even lower, than P's rate. Or perhaps P is not representative of industrial companies generally, and that other companies with shorter work shifts have even higher accident rates. Any of these scenarios, if true, would cast considerable doubt on the argument's conclusion that QM should follow P's example.



In sum, the recommendation relies on certain doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster it the argument's author must show--perhaps by way of a reliable citywide study--that companies of shorter work shifts have higher security rate. The author would also bolster the argument by providing reliable evidence that the accidents rates of the last year are representative. Finally, to better assess the argument I would need to know more details about the two companies’ manufacture processes.





32 104 105 106 167

1.文章假设Q和P其他条件都相同，只有工作时间不同导致了事故率不同，这是错误类比。The president fails to consider possible differences between Alta and Panoply



which render them incomparable. (F.A)工作时间长短未必就是导致企业事故发生率的原因，其他因素，比如员工工作室有没有安全保护措施、员工是否严格遵守车间工作流程要



求、工厂巡检是否严格、员工的工作情绪、员工的工作情绪、工作压力的大小等等都能导致这个差异。



2.文中没有显示Q公司疲倦和睡眠抑郁不一定是因为工作时间太长，有可能是职工下班玩得太厉害。甚至有可能因为本公司工作强度较小，职工下班都去做兼职，才导致太累的。减



少了工作时间，工人也未必都用来休息，有可能用来打麻将上网出去玩等。The assumption that Alta's workers would use the additional hour of free time to sleep or



rest is open to doubt.



3.许多事故是由于疲倦导致的，并没有说占比多少，可能只是因为基数大，实际因为这个原因出的事故还是只占所有情况的一小部分。有可能Q公司实际上的事故率低于P公司。The



president fails to consider that theper-worker accident rate might reveal that Alta is actuallysafer than Panoply, depending on the total number of workers



at each company. (V.D)



4.减少事故和提高生产效率之间并没有必然的关系。减少工作时间也不能必然导致生产效率的提高，有可能降低。The president provides no evidence that overall worker



productivity is attributable in part to the number of on-the-job accidents.

而且现在是三班倒正合适，如果减少一班就需要增加人手，从而增加了人力成本。

普渡哥

The vice president cites an accident comparison between Quiot Manufacturing and Panoply Industries plant,

这句话有很强的歧意。。