二战AWA训练日记

问啊问啊

开个贴打卡记录下每天的作文训练，516二战，目测是换库日， 不敢大意。一战的时候写完了临时还修改，结果改了半句时间结束屏幕跳没了，一下子影响了节奏。所以二战准备扎扎实实的训练。
希望大家帮忙督促哈。

5/4 第一次练习
模板没背熟，照着打了。结束后word改了些错别字。明天继续，争取不看模板写。
>>> 考古原题

The following appeared in a memo to the Saluda town council from the town’s business manager:
“Research indicates that those who exercise regularly are hospitalized less than half as often as those who don’t
exercise. By providing a well-equipped gym for Saluda’s municipal employees, we should be able to reduce the cost
of our group health insurance coverage by approximately 50 percent and thereby achieve a balanced town budget.”

=============================


In this argument, the manager reaches the conclusion that they should provide a well-equipped gym for Saluda's municipal employees. To bolster

the argument, the author cited the research indication that those who exercise regularly were hospitalized less than half as often as those who

didn't exercise. In addition, the manager further suggest that this plan will be able to reduce the cost of the health insurance coverage by

approximately 50% and thereby balance the budget. While the argument appears plausible at the very first glance, a meticulous scrutiny reveals

that the manager fails to address some important concerns that are vital to substantiate the argument. The critical logic flaws undermining the

conclusion will be elaborated in the following paragraphs.

The threshold problem with this argument involves the statistical dependability of the research itself. No evidence is provided that the number

of the respondents who exercise regularly is statistically significant or that the respondents were the representative of the overall group of

the Saluda's municipal employees in general. It is totally possible that those who exercise regularly might be just an insufficiently small

sample which cannot be relied on. Meanwhile, no details are provided about who designed the research, who responded, when, where, and how it was

conducted. Lacking all of these key information, it's completely unwarranted to draw any conclusion at all.

Given the fact that the research is reliable in all respects, the manager falsely rests on gratuitous assumption that the gym will reduce the

cost of health insurance. While this is a tempting assumption, no evidence is stated in the argument to support this assumption. In fact, this

is not necessarily the case. For example, it is more likely that the employees are lazy overall in town and only a small portion of them will go

to gym. It is also possible that people of the town feel more comfortable to exercise in outdoor and they are healthy enough to not use

insurance. Or that, the health insurance coverage is designed for diseases which cannot be avoided through gym exercise. Any of these scenarios,

if true, would show that the gym won't reduce the cost of health insurance.  Therefore, the argument is groundless without ruling out such

possibility.

Even if all the scenarios discussed above are tenable, it's unconvincing also because it is based on a false analogy. The argument rests on the

assumption that the situation in the research is analogous to the situation in town. Even though the research and the Saluda share much

similarity, they do not necessarily share the trait inferred in the conclusion. For example, average ages and eating habits are virtually absent

in the discussion of the manager's memo. Obviously the comparability between the research and the Saluda is not provided, making the analogy

untenable. Thus, it is difficult to digest the argument that Saluda is likely to experience the same consequence if it adopts the result from

the research.

In summary, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore not convincing as it stands. To buttress this argument, the

author needs more data and analysis to smooth out all the wrinkles in the line of reasoning.

27' 649 words

问啊问啊

>>> 考古

a letter from CEO to CFO to allow funding for building two buildings:
Rental Units increases 4 % annually, rental units's occupancy rate 92%. This means global economy is good and rental unit market is good.
Hope to apply funding for two buildings so that the two buildings will obtain the 4 % increase of the market, those other units under construction or from other developer doesn't matter.
These two building will bring tremendous business to the company.


=============================
In this argument, the author reaches the conclusion that the company needs funding to build the two rental units. To bolster the argument, the author points out that rental units increases 4% annually, and the occupancy rate is 92%, which means the global economic is good and the rental market is good. In addition, the author further suggests that these two buildings will bring tremendous business to the company and the other units under construction can be ignored so far. While the argument appears plausible at the very first glance, a meticulous scrutiny reveals several important concerns that are vital to substantiate argument. The critical logical flaw undermining the conclusion will be elaborated in the following paragraphs.

First of all, the author falsely rests on gratuitous assumption that the 4% increase of the rental units and the 92% of the occupancy rates indicate the good global economy and good rental unit market. While this is a tempting assumption, no evidence is stated in the argument to support this assumption. In fact, it is not necessary the case. For example, it is more likely that the global economy may still in worse, but only rental market slightly increases with 4%. While other industrials are experiencing the winter, it's hard to predict how well the 4% increase will influence on our investment. It is also possible that this is the last year of the increase for rental units market by some historical and statistical prediction research. And any investment on this market will be sunk in several following years. Therefore, the argument is groundless without ruling out all such possibility.

Given the fact the global economy is good and the unit market is good, the author falsely conclude the 4% increase will be the same for the company. This is unconvincing because it is based on the false analogy. The argument rests on the assumption that the market increase will be analogous to the company increase in all respects. Even though the overall market and the company situation share much similarity, they do not necessary share the same trait inferred in the conclusion. For example, the company is new to the market, while the 4% increase data came from all those mature companies in the market. Obviously, the similarity between the market and the company situation is not proved, making the analogy untenable. Thus, it is difficult to digest that the company is likely to experience the same rate of the increase as the market.

Even though the company will increase 4% as the market, it is hard to conclude that these two building will bring tremendous business to the company. It is entirely possible that the costs of the building, including materials, ground cost, labor, law expense, are prohibitively high, even preventing the company to start to earn money in the first 10 years. In short, without convincing data to weigh the cost and expense, the author is premature to draw any conclusion about the earnings.

To summary, argument is flawed due to the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore not convincing as it stands. To buttress argument, the author needs more data and analysis to smooth out all the wrinkles in the line of reasoning. If the author could provide the credible evidence to demonstrate the global economy, and take into account the feasibility of the analogy between the market and the company. Meanwhile, if the author could also provide data to support the conclusion of the earnings, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.

27', 586 words

问啊问啊

>>> 本月原始
By 钟楼小奶糕
说是一个公司有两种摩托，一种奢华版一种标准版，现在说标准版是机器流水线装配奢华版手工装配，所以奢华版的很time-consuming并且归，管理层打算把奢华版的生产线去掉换成流水线的标准版摩托车，这样生产效率高了利润也自然就高了

>>> 考古
V1. 一个摩托车公司有两条生产线---豪华版和普通版。豪华版的零件很贵，所以生产成本高；而且豪华版是纯手工，所以耗时更长。普通版零件便宜，而且可以生产线批量生产，所以成本更低，而且相比豪华版可以生产更多量。所以摩托车公司决定要取消豪华版的生产，把现有的豪华版生产线改为第二条普通版的生产线，这样公司就能生产更多的普通版摩托车，进而公司的利润会更高。
V2. 某摩托车生产公司有two production lines，手工线生产luxury motorcycles, but the production requires more expensive material and longer time; 机器人线生产standard motorcycles, . 公司将cease豪华车生产线in order to produce a great number of motorcycles more efficiently and get more profits.


=============================================

In this argument, the author reaches the conclusion that it's the company should replace the luxury motorcycles line to standard motorcycles line. To bolster the argument, the author points out that the materials in luxury line are expensive, and the manual process is time-consuming. In addition, the also further suggests that the plan will increase the revenue and gain more profits for the company. While the argument appears plausible at the very first glance, a meticulous scrutiny reveals that the author fails to address some important concerns that are vital to substantiate the argument. The critical logical flaws undermining the conclusion will be elaborated in the following paragraphs.

First of all, the author is engaged in the fallacy of causal oversimplification. The line of reasoning is that because the expensive materials and time-consuming manual process happen before the position of high cost and long production cycle, the former events are responsible for the later. No further demonstration linking the two events together are provided in the argument, leaving open the possibility that materials and manual process do not serve as the exclusive prerequisite for higher cost and lower production. And the two affairs are not causally related, but merely coincident. Besides, the author omits or rules out other possible causal factors that could bring about the exactly identical consequence. For example, the labor cost for manual luxury may be higher than standard, and the quality inspection doubles the production circle than standard line. As a result, without detailed analysis of the real factors of high cost and low production, it would be groundless to attribute them to the materials cost and time-consuming process.

Given the fact that the two factors do cause the result, the author also falsely rests on the gratuitous assumption that the new standard production line will contribute to more motors produced. While this is a tempting assumption, no evidence is stated in the argument to support the assumption. In fact, this is not necessary the case. For example, it is more likely that there is no enough space to deploy the new standard production line. It is also possible that the new line will actually cause longer production cycle due to stricter standard. Or that it will take longer than normal to train the worker to be familiar with the new line. Any of these scenarios if true, would show that the author's conclusion is groundless at all.

Finally, the author fails to consider all the possible costs for brining in the new standard line by hesitating to draw the conclusion that the company will gain more profit. Actually, if the cost of the rearrangement of the new production line will cost tremendously, the training of the new labor will cost much more than before, and the maintenance for the new line will also be expensive, then it's hard to say the company will earn profit soon. To weigh earning against the expense, the author need more data to convince the reader.

To sum up, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing as it stands. To buttress the argument, the author needs more data and analysis to smooth out all the wrinkles in the line of reasoning.

问啊问啊

五月七号，第四次练习

19.提高员工效率
>>> 本月原始
by seeing21
考了 一家公司的technology manager之类的说提高员工effiency可以提高公司profit。提议引进新的technology hardware and software以提高员工效率。理由一：可以提高多数工作在电脑上完成的员工的productivity。 理由二：忘了= =

我的point：1、并不是所有员工都依赖电脑，一些上了年纪的员工很少使用电脑工作，或者学习新的软件对他们来说是个负担，反而花费时间2、没有考虑costs。引进新技术的成本，以及员工适应新技术的时间成本


>>> 考古
第一个：by 只是一个梦
作文好像是说提高员工效率能提高公司利润。公司把钱投到了如何快速有效获取信息啥的technology上，能够提高员工效率。因此改进这样的技术能够让公司提高profit margin。公司通过采用这种战略可以让投入的每一分钱都提高利润。
第二个： by ltenyoko
一个啥部门说员工效率更高，公司收益也更高。他提出好的信息技术可以增进使用电脑工作的员工的效率，所以要引进最强力的最先进的信息技术，这样公司的profit margin会增高。
关键词是firm's employees, efficient, profit, information technology
V1 BY 端木水月
是一篇新的，说员工效率高profit就高，所以为了提高那些用电脑工作的员工的效率，要买新的software和一个什么，说这样就可以提高公司的profit
点很多很好写，我写的是效率高不等于profit高，还有环境和市场竞争；员工的效率如果饱和了换信息处理区（原文似乎是这个意思）也没用；profit=income-cost，老生常谈
还可以写换新的不一定能使用顺利反而降低效率，总之很多大家按自己的喜好来
V2 BY gurui826
考了增加IT HARDWARE 和sofeware可以让公司的productivty，所以invest IT HWandSW可以增加our firm's margin profits 大概是这么个意思，没看awa机经，不知道有没有。

>>> 考古原题
The following appeared in a memorandum from the information technology department of a major advertising firm:
“The more efficient a firm’s employees are, the more profitable that firm will be. Improvements in a firm’s information technology hardware and software are a proven way to increase the efficiency of employees who do the majority of their work on computers. Therefore, if our firm invests in the most powerful and advanced information technology available, employee productivity will be maximized. This strategy ensures that every dollar spent on enhanced
information technology will help to increase our firm’s profit margins.”

>>> 参考思路
1. 错误假设：无法保证投入更多的资金更新信息技术就可以使公司获得更多的利润。在员工没有得到及时培训时，员工能力无法达到新型技术要求，生产率还是无法提高，故而利润无法提高。
2. 本身利润空间很小，改进信息技术后投入增加，员工工作效率提高带来的利润增加弥补不了新技术带来的成本的增加，很可能会使利润下降甚至亏本。
3. 现有案例无法支持memorandum 中的观点，即认为信息技术越发达，工人的工作效率越高，进而公司的利润越多。


=============================


The author reaches the conclusion that the strategy of investing on IT will help to increase the firm's profit margin. To bolster the argument, the author points out that improvements in a firm's information technology are proven way to increase the efficiency of employees who do majority of their work on computers. In addition, the author further suggest that if the firm invests in the most powerful information technology, the employee productivity will be maximized. While the argument appears plausible at the very first glance, a meticulous scrutiny reveals some important concerns that are vital to substantiate the argument. The critical logical flaw undermining the conclusion will be elaborated in the following paragraphs.

First of all, the author is engaged in the causal oversimplification. The line of reasoning is that more efficient of the employees occurred before more profitable, the former event is responsible for the later. No further demonstration linking the two events are provided in the argument, leaving open the possibility that more efficient employees does not serve as the exclusive prerequisite for more profitable firm, and the two affairs are not causally related, but merely coincident. Meanwhile, the author omits or rules out other possible factors which could bring about the exact identical consequence. For example, more open-minded leadership style and more relaxed work environment all contribute to a more profitable firm. Therefore, it is completely unwarranted to draw any conclusion at all.

Given the fact that more efficient employees do serve as the exclusive prerequisite of more profit. The author falsely rests on the gratuitous assumption that the investment will inevitably improve the employee productivity. While this is a tempting assumption, no evidence is stated in the argument to support this assumption. In fact, it is not necessary the case. For example, it is more likely that, more powerful IT solution will cause more distraction for employee during the working hours since it will be easier and faster to play online game or shopping online. It is equally possible that more advanced IT solution will increase the complexity of the maintenance cost, not only money, but also time. Any of these scenarios, if true, would show that the powerful and advanced information technology will not contribute the maximum of the productivity. Therefore, the argument is groundless without ruling out all such possibility.

Even though the assumption above is grounded, it is difficult to digest the author's conclusion that the suggestion will increase the firm's profit margins. The actual cost of transformation from old IT system to new IT system is not evaluated, and the training cost for employee is not considered as well. It is possible that all these cost will be extremely high, even preventing the firm from making the profit. Without convincing data and analysis to weigh the gain against the expense, the author's notion is premature at all.

In summary, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing as it stands. To buttress the argument, the author needs more data and analysis to smooth all the wrinkles in the line of reasoning.


27'' 514 words

问啊问啊

In this argument, the author reaches the conclusion that people nowaday like to eat red meat and fatty cheese, therefore who owns the resturant cooking these food will earn a lot of money. To bolster the argument, the author points out that the Heart's Delight that is still selling traditional organic fruits and the owner Good Earth Cafe that is an old vegetarian restaurant are making a modest living. In addtition, the author further suggests that the owner of the new House of Beef across the street are now millionaires through serving courses of red meat and fatty cheeses. While the argument appeals plausible at the very first glance, a meticulous scrutiny reveals that the author fails to address some important concerns that are vital to substantiate the argument. The critical logical flaws undermining the conclusion will be elaborated in the following paragraphs.

First of all, the author is also engaged in the fallacy of causal oversimplification. The line of reasoning is that people concerns red meat and fatty cheeses occurred before House of Beef's becoming of millionaries, the former event is responsible for the later. No further demonstration linking the two events is provided in the argument, leaving open the possibility that people's concerns does not serve as the exculsive prerequsite for the millionaries, and the two affairs are not causally related, but merely coincident. Besides, the author omits or rules out other possible causal factors that may bring about the exactly identical consequence. For example, maybe the owner of the House of Beef is running luxury line and the customers are all billionaires so even one dinner will earn tremendously. It is also possible that the owner's father is a billionaires and left a lot of money to the owner. Therefore, without finding out the real factors for B, it is unfounded to draw any conclusion at all.

Given the fact that the people's new trend of red meat and fatty cheeses do cause the owner of the House of Beef become millionaires, the argument is also based on the false analogy. The argument rests on the assumption that the situation happened decade ago is analogous to the situation happening now in all respects. Even though decades ago and now share much similarities, they do not necessarily share the same trait inferred in the conclusion. For example, the neighbourhood and the government regulation all affect the situation now, but may not affect the situation in 1960. And no standard of the living condition is provided to demonstrate whis is modest living, what is poor living and what is rich living. Maybe they are actually rich around the neighbourhood but just cannot compare with the owner of the house of Beef. Therefore, it is difficult to digest the author's assupmtion that the two traditional stores are still living modestly.

In summary, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and therefore are not convincing as it stands. To buttress the argument, the author needs more data and analysis to smooth out all the wrinkles in the line of reasoning.

问啊问啊

大家好，我是一枚占位符