15. AA-86 The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a daily newspaper. “Company A has a large share of the international market in video-game hardware and software. Company B, the pioneer in these products, was once a $12 billion-a-year giant but collapsed when children became bored with its line of products. Thus Company A can also be expected to fail, especially given the fact that its games are now in so many American homes that the demand for them is nearly exhausted.” 日报的商业版:
公司a在视频游戏的硬件软件方面有很大的国际市场份额。公司b是这些产品的先锋,而且曾经一度是年收入120亿元的巨人,但在孩子们厌倦了它的系列产品后崩溃了。因此公司a也将失败,考虑到它的产品已经占据了那么多的美国家庭,对他的需求已经接近枯竭。 1, 类比错误。是否由share导致的。 2, A很可能生产出新的产品。 In this argument the author reasons that the failure of Company B portends a similar fate for Company A. The grounds for this prediction are similarities that exist between the two companies. The line of reasoning is that since both companies produce video-game hardware and software and both enjoy a large share of the market for these products, the failure of one is a reliable predictor of the failure of the other. This argument is unconvincing. The major problem with the argument is that the stated similarities between Company A and B are insufficient to support the conclusion that Company A will suffer a fate similar to Company B’s. In fact, the similarities stated are irrelevant to that conclusion. Company B did not fail because of its market share or because of the general type of product it produced; it failed because children became bored with its particular line of products. Consequently, the mere fact that Company A holds a large share of the video-game hardware and software market does not support the claim that Company A will also fail. An additional problem with the argument is that there might be relevant differences between Company A and Company B, which further undermine the conclusion. For example, Company A’s line of products may differ from Company B’s in that children do not become bored with them. Another possible difference is that Company B’s share of the market may have been entirely domestic whereas Company A has a large share of the international market. In conclusion this is a weak argument. To strengthen the conclusion the author would have to show that there are sufficient relevant similarities between Company A and Company B as well as no relevant differences between them. 16. AA-2 The following appeared in a memorandum from the business department of the Apogee Company. “When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today. Therefore, the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location. Such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees.” 下面摘自APogee公司的商务部门的备忘录:
当Apogee将它所有的业务部门集中在一处时,它将有比现在更多的利润。因此,Apogee应该关闭它的驻外办公室并从单一场所管理它的所有部门。这样的话,集中会通过削减成本提高利润,并帮助公司更好地对所有员工进行监督。 1. causal oversimplification: It is imprudent to conclude that the establishment of the field offices is the only reason explaining the decline of the profit. 2. all things are equal: The success of the centralization of the past does not guarantee the applicability in the future. 3. either-or-or choice: The author assumes that the centralization and the establishment of field offices are mutually exclusive alternatives, there is no middle ground between they two. In fact, we can have the field offices under centralized control. In this argument the author concludes that the Apogee Company should close down field offices and conduct all its operations from a single, centralized location because the company had been more profitable in the past when all its operations were in one location. For a couple of reasons, this argument is not very convincing. First, the author assumes that centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and streamlining supervision of employees. This assumption is never supported with any data or projections. Moreover, the assumption fails to take into account cost increases and inefficiency that could result from centralization. For instance, company representatives would have to travel to do business in areas formerly served by a field office, creating travel costs and loss of critical time. In short, this assumption must be supported with a thorough cost-benefit analysis of centralization versus other possible cost-cutting and/or profit-enhancing strategies. Second, the only reason offered by the author is the claim that Apogee was more profitable when it had operated from a single, centralized location. But is centralization the only difference relevant to greater past profitability? It is entirely possible that management has become lax regarding any number of factors that can affect the bottom line (帐本底线) such as inferior products, careless product pricing, inefficient production, poor employee expense account monitoring, ineffective advertising, sloppy 肥大的buying policies and other wasteful spending. Unless the author can rule out other factors relevant to diminishing profits, this argument commits the fallacy of assuming that just because one event (decreasing profits) follows another (decentralization), the second event has been caused by the first. In conclusion, this is a weak argument. To strengthen the conclusion that Apogee should close field offices and centralize, this author must provide a thorough cost-benefit analysis of available alternatives and rule out factors other than decentralization that might be affecting current profits negatively. “To reverse the deterioration of the postal service, the government should raise the price of postage stamps. This solution will no doubt prove effective, since the price increase will generate larger revenues and will also reduce the volume of mail, thereby eliminating the strain on the existing system and contributing to improved morale.” Discuss how well reasoned... etc. 全国性新闻杂志的意见栏:
为了转变邮政服务退化的状况,政府应该提高邮资邮票的价格。这个解决方法将毫无疑问是有效的。因为价格提升会产生更大的收益而且会减少邮件数量,从而消除目前系统中存在的紧张并有助于提高士气 1价格提高带来的增加和数量减少带来的减少哪个大不是定数 2收益增加并不一定就会提高士气,因为他们的工资很可能是固定工资而不是绩效工资。 3其他方法可能更有效果。例如减低成本,把固定工资改成绩效工资。 1, 收入是否会增加?因为volume会减少。 2, 士气与volume的减少是否有关系?很可能工资是fixed salary,不会被其他改变。 3, 是否有其他的办法?比如引进技术,减少成本等等。 The author concludes that a postage-stamp price increase is needed to reduce the deterioration of the postal service. The author reasons that raising the price of stamps will accomplish this goal because it will generate more revenue, thereby eliminating the strain on the system. The author further reasons that a price increase will also reduce the volume of mail, thereby improving the morale of postal workers. The reasoning in this argument is problematic in three respects. The main problem with the argument is the author’s mistaken assumption that eliminating strain on the system and improving employee morale are mutually achievable by way of an increase in stamp prices. A price increase will generate more revenue only if the volume of mail remains constant or increases. But, if the volume of mail increases or remains constant, worker morale will not be improved. On the other hand, if the price increase reduces the volume of mail, revenues may decrease, and the strain on the system will not be eliminated. Consequently, eliminating the strain on the system and improving the morale of the workers cannot both be achieved by simply raising the price of postage stamps. Secondly, the author’s conclusion that the proposed price increase is necessary to reduce deterioration of the postal service relies on the assumption that no other action would achieve the same result. However, the author provides no evidence to substantiate this assumption. It is possible, for example, that careful cost-cutting measures that do not decrease worker morale might achieve the same goal. It is also possible that other revenue-enhancing measures that do not undermine employee morale are available. Thirdly, the author unfairly assumes that reducing mail volume and increasing revenues will improve employee morale. This is not necessarily the case. It is possible that employee morale is materially improved only by other means, and that additional revenues will not be used in ways that improve morale. It is also possible that a decrease in mail volume will result in a reduction of the size of the labor force, regardless of revenues, which in turn might undermine morale. In conclusion, the author’s proposed solution to the problem of the deterioration of the postal service will not work. Raising postage-stamp prices cannot bring about both of the outcomes the author identifies as being necessary to solve the problem. Before we can accept the argument, the author must modify the proposal accordingly and must provide more information about the relationship between employee morale and mail volume.
|