AA46题怎么理解？

philikittist

46、The following appeared in a memorandum from the directors of a security and safety consulting service.
“Our research indicates that over the past six years no incidents of employee theft have been reported within ten of the companies that have been our clients. In analyzing the security practices of these ten companies, we have further learned that each of them requires its employees to wear photo identification badges while at work. In t he future, therefore, we should recommend the use of such identification badges to all of our clients.”

我想问一下，employee theft是不是指内部盗窃呀，那给员工戴photo identification有用么？这个办法只能防外贼吧。我本来想这么写的，但是看了提纲好像并没有质疑这点，想问一下是不是我对这个事情理解错了？

谢谢大家！

leeon

这个和原文的逻辑关系不是很有影响，我觉得可以攻击两点：

1。insufficient sample；sample只给了10个公司，这个样本太小了，不足以说明问题；

2。causal oversimplification；requires its employees to wear photo identification badges－no incidents of employee theft have been reported ，这里有很多问题，比如是其它原因导致no incidents，或者have been reported不准确，发生了没有报告的。

还可以加一个hasty generilization，其他客户可能情况不太一样，所以即使这样推广也不一定有效。

philikittist

十分感谢leeon！！！！hoho,我要剽窃你的思路~

我也想了一下，就按逻辑套路攻击，不想这些东西了。