|
大家帮我看看我的作文吧。。。。。。感觉有4 分吗？觉得好差。。。。
------------------------------------------------------------------
AA 33
“It is no longer cost-effective for the Perks Company to continue offering its employees a generous package of benefits and incentives year after year. In periods when national unemployment rates are low, Perks may need to offer such a package in order to attract and keep good employees, but since national unemployment rates are now high, Perks does not need to offer the same benefits and incentives. The money thus saved could be better used to replace the existing plant machinery with more technologically sophisticated equipment, or even to build an additional plant.”
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
In this arguement, the arguer concludes that under nowadays circumstances that unenployment rates are high,  company no longer need to offer employee that benegit package as it did before. This conclusion based on the assumption that elimilate the package from the employee and invest the money into the other part inside the company such as the equipment or building another plant will benefit the company more. However, the conclusion here has several flaws.
First of all, this arguement draw the conclusion based on a unwarranted assumption. Obviously, the aruger falsely assume the remove of the benifical package from employee will not affect the productivity of the employee, thus would directly influence of the company. It is true that even under the presure of the outside job market, this kind of elimination of benefit package will influence the emotion of even the most loyal employee in the company.
Secondly, the author of this arugement uses a flawed arguementation way in this arguement which is hasty generalization. In the arguement, the arguer concludes that saved money or resources from the removal of the benefif package will be invest into other part of the operation inside the company which will definitly generate the ideal consequce. It is not certain that inverted money in other part of the company will be success. Acutally, every investment surely will along with the invest risk which coould not be cypass in this case. Given above, were the investment failed, this arguement will surely be undermined by that.
Generally speaking, this arguement is flawed because is failed to establish a effective assumption that the immediately remove of the benefit package will not affect the emotion of the employee and to give a convicing reason for the lucrative result of the investment in other part. If the arguer could prove better that enimilation of the package under this certain circumstance would not result the decline of the productivity and every investment by the company will make momey , this arguement above could be more convicing.
[此贴子已经被作者于2005-9-11 23:48:00编辑过] | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2005-9-11 23:37:00
楼主
