argu 104 求拍

张卓琪

in this argument the arguer comes to the conclusions that by shortening each of the three work shifts by one hour of company QM, the number of on-the-job accidents will be reduced and productivity will be increased. To justify the conclusion, the author pints out that workers at our newly opened factory reported 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than workers at nearby P industries. The author also cites that P company has superior safety records. However, close scrutiny of this argument reveals that it is unconvincing in several aspects.
First and foremost, the argument unfairly claims that higher injuries suffered from industries is the result of fatigue and sleep deprivation rather than some other phenomenon. The arguer ignores a host of other possible reasons for higher on-the-job accidents. Perhaps company QM is established recently and the workers are novices which are not so skilled as experienced workers. Or perhaps the maintenance of the production equipments of the company are not good or the awareness of the safety is lacked in the workers of the company QM. In short , without ruling out all other possible explanations for the higher accidents, the author cannot convince me that fatigue and sleep deprivation are the causes.
In addition, assuming that fatigue and sleep deprivation are the major causes of the accidents, the arguer unjustly asserts that superior safety records of company P are attributable to shorter work shifts. The arguer overlooks other possibilities which may lead to the superior safety records. Perhaps it is the skilled experience of the workers in company P that accounts, or perhaps company P has a higher production automation and many dangerous work done by machines which serve to the superior safety records. Since the articles fails to account for these alternative explanations for the superior safety records, the article’s author cannot make any sound inference based on the shorter work time and superior safety records of company P.
In sum, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading, to make it logically accepted , the author should have to substantiate what have been presented above. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of the argument until the author can provide more information about what have been stated above.

普渡哥

写得不错

oncepubsub

Intruction 不是 alternative explanation 吗？ 这样写没问题？