Argument求改，马上就考试了

wangrong0930

1.The following appeared in a memo from the mayor of the town of West Egg.


“Two years ago, our consultants predicted that West Egg’s landfill, which is used for garbage disposal, would be completely filled within five years. During the past two years, however, town residents have been recycling twice as much aluminum and paper as they did in previous years. Next month the amount of material recycled should further increase, since charges for garbage pickup will double. Furthermore, over ninety percent of the respondents to a recent survey said that they would do more recycling in the future. Because of our residents’ strong commitment to recycling, the available space in our landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted. ”
In this argument, the arguer concluded the available space in landfill will last longer than predicted. To justify this claim, the arguer provided static, surveys and prediction. However, none of them succeeded in convincing us for the following reasons.


The first reason the arguer used is town residents has been recycling twice as much aluminum and paper as they did in previous years. By providing this static, the writer wanted to show the amount of garbage throwing into the landfill will decreased sharply and the landfill will last longer. But this number can’t speak of it. If the recycling rate was very low two years ago, for example, only 0.01percent of the total garbage, twice increase, 0.02 percent of the total garbage is still too low to influence the total amount of the garbage. It will be better if the writer provided more precise static.


Then, the writer predicted next month the amount of material recycled should further increase, since charges for garbage pickup will double. However, I can’t agree with it. This prediction based on one important assumption which may not be true at all, the residents will do more recycling only because charge for garbage doubled. In the passage, the arguer has never proved that. In fact, the residents will do more recycling may result from the improvement of environmental consciousness rather than the charge. In this condition, the charge improvement will realize nothing. Besides, even though charge is one of the crucial factors for resident’s decision on recycling, we can’t guarantee twice improvement is enough for people to do more recycle.


Last, a recent survey show ninety percent of respondents would do more recycling in the future. But the writher gave us no details about the survey, for example, who did this survey, how many people it has interviewed, how to deal with the data. Specifically, the survey interviewed only 100 residents or 10000 residents who living far away from the landfill. So, it’s hard for us to believe the validity of the survey. Moreover, though the data is valid, whether the people who said they will do more recycling will truly do more recycling and how much they will recycle are till questions. Before coming into the conclusion, more complete details of the survey would be helpful.






























2.The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Alta Manufacturing.


“During the past year, Alta Manufacturing had thirty percent more on-the-job accidents than nearby Panoply Industries, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. Experts believe that a significant contributing factor in many on-the-job accidents is fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers. Therefore, to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents at Alta and thereby increase productivity, we should shorten each of our three work shifts by one hour so that our employees will get adequate amounts of sleep. ”


In this argument, the arguer claims that “To reduce the number of one-the-job accidents and thereby increase productivity, Alta Manufacturing should shorten each of their three work shifts by one hour so that their employees will get adequate amounts of sleep”. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites the example of nearby Panoply Industries and the judgment of the expert. But it fails to convince us for the following reasons.


First of all, the argument mistakes the concurrence as cause-effect relation. By saying” the work shifts of Panoply Industries are one hour shorter than Alta”, the writher wants to show the job accident is caused by the shortness of work shifts. However, Although the job accidents in Panoply is less than Alta and its work shifts is longer, it doesn’t show the different time of work shift is the cause of the different job accident rates. Other factors, for example the level of safety protection, worker’s consciousness of self-protection, the emotion of the worker in the past year, may also cause the high job accidents rate. To strong the argument, the writer need to eliminate the possibility of other factors.


Then, the arguer cites the judgment of the expert,” a significant contributing factor in many on-the-job accidents is fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers”, in order to advocate the relation of accidents and sleep. First, I doubt the truth of the judgment unless the memo presents more details about the judgment as, who is the expert, and how the expert gets this judgment, what’s the evidence. Next, though fatigue and sleep deprivation is a vital factor of job accidents, we can’t conclude the accidents happened in Alta result from sleep deprivation.


Last, the conclusion is based on such an assumption that the accidents in Alta are caused by sleep deprivation, but the writer fails to prove it in the former demonstration. Also, given that assumption, the author doesn’t prove one more hour will be used to sleep other than dancing in the club or chatting with friends or other entertainments, which is not a guarantee of adequate amounts of sleep. Finally, productivity is the result of a lot of factors far more than the spirit of the workers and job accident rate. So whether improvement in sleeping and less job accidents rate will increase productivity is still a question.

普渡哥

店铺没有结论段吗？

普渡哥

都没有结论段吗？

wangrong0930

不是说可以没有的吗？