argument210 寄托4人组 8.12 作业

tangjihede

本文是“寄托4人组”今日的作业，已有组员会来修改。我们欢迎大家就文中的结构和内容进行讨论，但请其他G友优先照顾没有组队的同学。谢谢！


Argument210  第2篇
------摘要------
作者：     共用时间：30分1秒     509 words
从2005年7月12日9时11分到2005年7月12日9时30分
------题目------
The following is a letter to the editor of a news magazine.
'Clearly, the successful use of robots on missions to explore outer space in the past 20 years demonstrates that robots could be increasingly used to perform factory work more effectively, efficiently, and profitably than human factory workers. The use of robots in factories would offer several advantages. First, robots never get sick, so absenteeism would be reduced. Second, robots do not make mistakes, so factories would increase their output. Finally, the use of robots would also improve the morale of factory workers, since factory work can be so boring that many workers would be glad to shift to more interesting kinds of tasks.'

1.        fallacy of false analogy: 在航天上干的好不等于能应用在工厂里，并且成本能为工厂接受
2.        就算满足上面的条件，作者给出的三个理由也靠不住：
a 维修和升级也会造成旷工
b 自身虽然不会犯错，但对于错误的指令无法察觉，对于特殊情况也无法应对，这和工人一比就差远了。
c 机器人来了，工人的饭碗受到了威胁，士气还能好么？

------正文------

By appealing to the successful use of robots on missions to explore outer space, the author tries to convince us that robots also have a promising future in factories. I will argue, however, a close scrutiny will reveal that several critical flaws undermine the validity of the argument.

To begin with, the mere success of robots working in outer space does not necessarily imply that it is possible for them to work in factories. On the one hand, the techniques needed in outer space missions might be so different from that of daily factory work. The author does not give us any detail to support that robots can be competent in factory but only takes it for granted that robots can, whereas this might be not the case. On the other hand, even if robots can work well in factory, still no data is offered to prove that factories can afford the cost of robots. It might be that robots are too expensive for a factory to equip them. Therefore, the author is too hasty to argue for robots' career in factories.

What is more, even granted that robots are indeed suitable for factory work and economical enough for factories to purchase, those advantages the author holds are not well grounded. First, never sick as robots are, they nevertheless might be broken or need update; in both cases they will commit absenteeism as well. So there is no guarantee that total absenteeism would be reduced after equipping robots. Second, robots do not make mistakes only as long as the order given to them is not wrong and there is no happenchance occurring. In the former case, if the order is wrong, then the result might be a disaster for the factory, for no robot can find the wrongness of the order, and will do whatever they are asked to do. In the later case, when one step of the streamline process is wrong out of whatever reasons, then robots cannot figure it out and will keep their own pace, which will make all the products useless. Although neither case is robots' fault, yet compared with human workers, who can be more active to find mistakes and deal with unusual situation, robots have no advantage here. Finally, the author also fails to give sound analysis why the morale of factory workers would be improved.  Although robots can supercede workers in many boring work, however, their appearance might cause a lot of workers losing their jobs for not so many of them could easily find other vacant job opportunities in "more interesting kinds of tasks." Actually it is highly possible all the workers, laid-off or not yet, might be worried about losing jobs every day and be low in morale, due to the occurrence of robots.

In sum, the argument is not very persuasive as it stands. To make it more convincing, the author would have to offer more detailed information to prove that robots can be used in factory possibly and economically, that their using can be really efficient, and that morale of workers will not be damaged.

[ Last edited by tangjihede on 2005-8-12 at 17:35 ]

bridgewalker

argument210 寄托4人组 8.12 作业

本文是“寄托4人组”今日的作业，已有组员会来修改。我们欢迎大家就文中的结构和内容进行讨论，但请其他G友优先照顾没有组队的同学。谢谢！


Argument210  第2篇
------摘要------
作者：     共用时间：30分1秒     509 words
从2005年7月12日9时11分到2005年7月12日9时30分
------题目------
The following is a letter to the editor of a news magazine.
'Clearly, the successful use of robots on missions to explore outer space in the past 20 years demonstrates that robots could be increasingly used to perform factory work more effectively, efficiently, and profitably than human factory workers. The use of robots in factories would offer several advantages. First, robots never get sick, so absenteeism would be reduced. Second, robots do not make mistakes, so factories would increase their output. Finally, the use of robots would also improve the morale of factory workers, since factory work can be so boring that many workers would be glad to shift to more interesting kinds of tasks.'

1.        fallacy of false analogy: 在航天上干的好不等于能应用在工厂里，并且成本能为工厂接受
2.        就算满足上面的条件，作者给出的三个理由也靠不住：
a 维修和升级也会造成旷工
b 自身虽然不会犯错，但对于错误的指令无法察觉，对于特殊情况也无法应对，这和工人一比就差远了。
c 机器人来了，工人的饭碗受到了威胁，士气还能好么？

------正文------

By appealing to the successful use of robots on missions to explore outer space, the author tries to convince us that robots also have a promising future in factories. I will argue, however, a close scrutiny will reveal that several critical flaws undermine the validity of the argument.

To begin with, the mere success of robots working in outer space does not necessarily imply that it is possible for them to work (that这一串=their success可以不?) in factories. On the one hand, the techniques needed in outer space missions might be so different from that of daily factory work. The author does not give us any detail to support that robots can be competent in factory but only takes it for granted that robots (they?) can, whereas this might be not the case.(拆开吧!) On the other hand, even if robots can work well in factory, still no data is offered to prove that factories can afford the cost of 这里加个动名好些。 robots. It might be that robots are too expensive for a factory to equip (好像不太恰当。另，是在装机呢？还是在用机武装工厂？) them. Therefore, the author is too hasty to argue for robots' career (换成promise?) in factories.

What is more, even granted that robots are indeed suitable for factory work and economical enough for factories to purchase, those advantages the author holds are not well grounded. First, never sick as robots are, they nevertheless might be broken or need update; in both cases they will commit absenteeism as well. So there is no guarantee that total absenteeism would be reduced after equipping robots. Second, robots do not make mistakes only as long as the order given to them is not wrong and there is no happenchance (这个词请教) occurring. In the former case, if the order is wrong, then the result might be a disaster for the factory, for no robot can find the wrongness (fault?) of the order, and will do whatever they are asked to do (这个可以省吗？请教。). In the later case, when one step of the streamline process is wrong (重复率偏高) out of whatever reasons, then robots cannot figure it out and will keep their own pace, which will make all the products useless (似乎过于笼统!). (Although neither case is robots' fault, yet compared with human workers,) (请教下：although和yet能用在一起?) who can be more active to find mistakes (跟机器的情况没形成呼应) and deal with unusual situation, robots have no advantage here. Finally, the author also fails to give sound analysis why the morale of factory workers would be improved.  Although robots can supercede (replace or substitute?) workers in many boring work, however, their appearance might cause (a lot of workers losing their jobs)=(lay-offs)? for not so many of them could easily find other vacant job opportunities in "more interesting kinds of tasks." Actually(请教，这里需不需要用逗号?) it is highly possible all the workers, laid-off or not yet, might be worried about losing jobs every day and be low in morale, due to the occurrence of robots.最后一点可以再详细些。

可否把笼子打开，把3点分别摆出来？这样硬挤在一起有点别扭。当然，这只是个人感觉。逻辑上可以的。

In sum, the argument is not very persuasive as it stands. To make it more convincing, the author would have to offer more detailed information to prove that robots can be used in factory possibly and economically, that their using can be really efficient, and that morale of workers will not be damaged.

总结一下：
呵呵，套路基本定型了。我暂时挑不出更多的毛病了。

我可能有说得不对的地方，仅供参考！

[ Last edited by bridgewalker on 2005-8-12 at 19:51 ]

tangjihede

1.happenchance 是偶然事件的意思
2。asked to后的do能不能省我也没把握。
3。although和yet可以连用。
4。actually后面最好还是有逗号的。
5。我试着打开过，不过后果是第一点短的太刺眼了，就又合上了。
6。确实，我也感觉我的一个大问题是每一点展开的还不够充分。
7。多谢！