GRE作文范文 Argument-27

The following is a recommendation from the director of personnel to the president of Profession Printing Company.

"In a recent telephone survey of automobile factory workers,older employees were less likely to report that having a supervisor increases their productivity. Among workers aged 18 to 29,27 percent said that they are more aged 30 or over,and only 8 percent for those aged 50 or over. Cleaarly,if our printing company hires mainly older employees, we will increase productivity and save money because of the reduced need for supervisors."

嘉文博譯Sample Essay

With this argument, the director of personnel is trying to convince the president of the Profession Printing Company that older employees are lesslikely to report that having a supervisor present increases their productivity.The personnel director then conclueds that the printing company should therefore hire mainly older employees to incresse productivity and save money because money because of the reduced need for supervisors.This argument is based on a false analogy and suffers from several other critical flaws.

Firstly,there is no evidence presented that the telephone survey of automobile factory workers is reliable.It id not clear how the survey was performed, the number and job titles of those who were surveyed,or what is the margin of error.Furthermore, the director of personnel only states"older employees were less likely to report that having a supervisor present increases their productivity" This is not the same as saying that older employees are in fact more productive without a supervisor or even that they are equally productive with or a supervisor present.In addition, the survey shows that only 8 percent of wokers aged 50 or over said that they are more productive in the present of a supervisor, but it does not state what the other 92 percent of these worker does not need supervision. The wording of the telephoto survey is a problem,leading to the director of personnel's blind assumptione that hiring mainly older employees will increase productivity and save money due to a reduced need for supervisord.There is no such evidence presented in the argument.

Furthermore, even assuming the validity of the study , the argument is based on the false analogy that automobile factory workers and printing company employees are the same.In an automobile factory, it is likely that the workers perform repetitiouswork and become quite skilled over time at their jobs lessening the need for immediate supervision.With a printing company ,however,nearly every job is different than the last,making it more difficult to become proficient.It is easy to see that older automobile factory workers would become expert at assembly line work,for example, and therefore believe that they need no supervision to do their work.With a printing company,perhaps older workers would not be suited to this type of work and automobile manufacturing are clealy two very different types of requiring distinct types of work skills. It does not follow that because older automobile workers feel they don't need supervision that the same theory would apply to printing company employees. The director of personnel merely assumes that the workers would be the same in both industries without providing any proof that this is true.

In summary, the director of personnel's argument fails to convince because it is based on a false analogy as well as problematic reasoning .He or she directly compares automobile factory workers to potential employees of a printing company,which require very different job skills.Furthermore, the more, the study itself may have been misinterpreted,as it merely states that only 8 percent of workers aged 50 or over are more productive in the presence of their immediate supervisor.It expressly does not say what other 92 percent of that group of workers reported.There is no evdence presented by the director of personnel that hiring mainly older employees will increase productivity and save money due to a reduced need for supervisors, and his or her argument should be rejected.

(613 words)

參考譯文

下文是人事部主任給職業(yè)印刷廠公司總裁的建議：

“在最近一次對汽車工廠工人的電話調查中，說有工頭在場就能提高生產效率的年齡較大的員工相對較少。在年齡為18歲至29歲的工人當中，有27%的人說當著他們頂頭上司的面工作起來會更有效率;相對而言，年齡為30歲及以上的工人，這樣說的僅有12%;年齡為50歲及以上的人僅為8%。顯然，倘若我們印刷公司主要雇傭年歲較大的雇員，那么我們將會提高生產效率，并因減少工頭兒節(jié)省費用。”

憑借上述論證，人事部主任試圖讓職業(yè)印刷公司的 總裁相信，最近一次對汽車工廠工人的電話調查表明，年歲較大的雇員更有可能不會說有工頭在場會提高生產效率，并且，因為不再需要那么多工頭，從而得以節(jié)省費用。這一論證是建立在錯誤的類比之上的，而且存在幾處嚴重的錯誤。

首先，沒有證據說明對汽車工廠的電話調查時可信的。我們不清楚調查時如何進行的，那些被調查者的數目和工種是什么，以及誤差的幅度是多少。再者，人事部主任只是說“年歲較大的雇員更有可能不會說有什么工頭在場會提高生產效率”。這與下述說法并不完全相同，即實際上年紀較大的雇員在沒有工頭在場的情況下會有更高的工作效率;他甚至與下述說法也不相同，即無論是有沒有工頭在場，他們的生產效率同樣高。另外，調查顯示，50歲及以上的工人只有8%的人說工頭在場會使生產效率更高，但沒有說明另外92%的工人說了些什么。并不能假定他自然而然地意味著這一年齡段的工人不需要監(jiān)督。電話調查的措辭也是一個問題，他使人事部主任盲目假定，主要雇傭歲數較大的雇員就能提高生產效率，而且因為減少對工頭的需要而節(jié)省費用。論證中并沒有提出這方面的證據。

其次，即使我們承認該項調查的有效性，它仍然是基于錯誤的類比——把汽車工廠的工人等同于印刷公司的雇員。在汽車工廠，很可能工人從事重復性的工作，一段時間以后就對工作熟練了，所以就減少時比較困難的。例如，我們很容易見到，汽車工廠歲數較大的工人成為裝配線上的專家，從而相信他們不需要有人來監(jiān)督他們的工作。但在印刷公司，歲數較大的工人或許不適合這類工作，所以生產效率會降低而不是提高。印刷工作和汽車制造顯然是來那個種完全不同的工種，需要不同的技能。我們并不能說因為歲數較大的汽車工人覺得不需要監(jiān)工，因而這套理論也同樣適用于印刷公司的雇員。人事部主任只是臆斷這兩種行業(yè)的工人是同樣的，因為它沒有提供任何證據來證明這一點。

總之，人事部主任的論證沒有說服力，因為它的類比基礎是謬誤的，推理也是成問題的。他簡單地把汽車工廠的工人比作印刷公司的潛在雇員，但這兩者實際上需要非常不同的工作技能。再者，調查本身被曲解了，因為它只是說50歲及以上的工人僅有8%的工人當著其頂頭上司的面會有較高的生產效率。顯然他并未說明其余92%的工人的反映為何。人事部主任也沒有提供證據證明，主要雇傭歲數較大的雇員會提高生產效率，以及由于減少對監(jiān)工的需要而能節(jié)省費用。因此，他的論證應予摒棄。