argument
11. 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.”
1.我们不知道这30％到底是多还是少，如果本来就已经很安全生产，那即见并不能算什么，并且，而且只在过去的一年是这样，样本时间不够，可能这个厂子刚换完新设备，工人对设备不熟悉，导致事故频发，并不能输今后也是这个样子。可能生产的产品就不一样
2。作者试图假设告诉我们工厂的人由于多工作了一个小时就导致了530的事故，可能人家只工作了很少的几个小时，而多功能做一个小时并没有超过工人的劳动强度，可能是应为机器的一天没听倒是事故发生。而且只是专家这样看，并不是工人自己反应的我们表示怀疑，可能工人是对工资，福利不满，工作积极性不高，而且看到别的厂子再放一个小时，更不平衡，导致事故频发。
3。就算我们减少一个小时，也不能说明就会减少事故发生率。可能这个厂子本身就有问题，设备不如人家的好，工人素质不如人家的好，管理人员松懈，惩罚不明都会导致事故的发生。
19.11－20。40
The argument cites the one-hour-extraordinary working time than the other manufactory result in more job accidents. To support the recommendation, the arguer compares the condition with a nearby manufactory and cites the suggestion of experts, who believe the one-extraordinary hour is result in the workers tired and not concentrate on. At first glance, the several evidences seemingly more convincing, however, when I think them over I found it is so unreliable and unconvincing.
First of all, the arguer consider, in the past year, the manufactory has more than on-job-accident than the other manufactory account for the one-hour-extraordinary working time. At first, we can not know the percentage of accidents in several years ago, so without compared with before we can not conclude the thirty percent is more than ever or less than past. Maybe the manufactory has decreased the percentage of accidents than before. Secondly, in a year we can not draw any conclusion about the thirty percents accidents whether it is profitable or expenses. Maybe the manufactory has promoted the equipments and brought in new technology which the workers don not acquainted and the workers work very hard on new equipments and learning the new technology and caused the accidents increasingly, however, the accidents maybe more necessary to the future of the manufactory. Finally, the fatal problem is the arguer can not show us the product of the two manufactory whether are homogeneous or not, if not the two manufactories are not have comparability which is not convincing us. We need more details about the two manufactories otherwise we can not conclude the accents are caused the one-hour-extraordinary working time.
Furthermore, the arguer seemingly cites a strengthen evidence about the experts what said, whereas, the recommendation of the experts are based on the potential hypotheses which the worker has worked many hours and felt fatigue and distracted. What evidences can made us draw the conclusions in the arguments? Perhaps, in the experts' assumption, the conclusion could be the right, however, the arguer short the evidence to support it. We can not exclude the possibility about the other manufactory worked in a shortly time, the manufactory is merely more than one hour maybe can not influence the condition of the workers. With the flaws of the experts, the evidence is also unreliable to support the argument.
Finally, the arguer presumes if the manufactory reduce one hour working time, the accidents will decrease immediately. It is a unconvincing presumption of the arguer. We assume the presumption of the above are all valid, nevertheless, maybe the manufactory has its fatal problems. For instants, the equipments of the manufactory are old-fashioned than the other manufactory, or maybe the experience of the workers is less than the other, or the conductors of the manufactory are not have more ability than the other and so forth. Without compared the several factors with the other factory, we can not draw the conclusion the manufactory will turn better in sorting an working hour.
In the argument, the evidences seemingly more convincing at first glance, nonetheless, the argument has more fatal flaws substantially. More elements are not compared with the past time and have certain unconvincing hypotheses, they all result the argument are so reliable.
这会写得快了些，请大家看一下。作者: superficial 时间: 2005-12-15 10:30:49
argument
11. 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.”
1.我们不知道这30％到底是多还是少，如果本来就已经很安全生产，那即见并不能算什么，并且，而且只在过去的一年是这样，样本时间不够，可能这个厂子刚换完新设备，工人对设备不熟悉，导致事故频发，并不能输今后也是这个样子。可能生产的产品就不一样
2。作者试图假设告诉我们工厂的人由于多工作了一个小时就导致了530的事故，可能人家只工作了很少的几个小时，而多功能做一个小时并没有超过工人的劳动强度，可能是应为机器的一天没听倒是事故发生。而且只是专家这样看，并不是工人自己反应的我们表示怀疑，可能工人是对工资，福利不满，工作积极性不高，而且看到别的厂子再放一个小时，更不平衡，导致事故频发。
3。就算我们减少一个小时，也不能说明就会减少事故发生率。可能这个厂子本身就有问题，设备不如人家的好，工人素质不如人家的好，管理人员松懈，惩罚不明都会导致事故的发生。
19.11－20。40
The argument cites the one-hour-extraordinary working time than the other manufactory result in more job accidents. To support the recommendation, the arguer compares the condition with a nearby manufactory and cites the suggestion of experts, who believe the one-extraordinary hour is result in the workers tired and not concentrate on. At first glance, the several evidences seemingly more convincing, however, when I think them over I found it is so unreliable and unconvincing.
First of all, the arguer consider, in the past year, the manufactory has more than去 on-job-accident than the other manufactory account for the one-hour-extraordinary working time. At first, we can not know the percentage of accidents in去 several years ago, so without compared without是介词，所以应该用动名词with before we can not conclude the thirty percent is more than ever or less than past. Maybe the manufactory has decreased the percentage of accidents than before. Secondly, infroma year we can not draw any conclusion about the thirty percents accidents whether it is profitable or expenses.为什么是profitable? Maybe the manufactory has promoted the equipments and brought in new technology which the workers don not acquainted withand the workers work very hard on new equipments and learning the new technology and caused the accidents increasingly, however, the accidents maybe more necessary to the future of the manufactory. Finally, the fatal problem is the arguer can not show us the product of the two manufactory whether are homogeneous or not, if not the two manufactories are not have comparability which is not convincing us.这句话反复否定，晕了 We need more details about the two manufactories otherwise we can not conclude the accents are causedby不加by意思就变了the one-hour-extraordinary working time.
Furthermore, the arguer seemingly cites a strengthen evidence aboutwhat应该加在这里 the experts what said, whereas, the recommendation of the experts are based on the potential hypotheses which 应该用that吧或者 in whichthe worker has worked many hours and felt fatigue and distracted. What evidences can made us draw the conclusions in the arguments? Perhaps, in the experts' assumption, the conclusion could be the去 right, however, the arguer short the evidence to support it. We can not exclude the possibility about the other manufactory worked in a shortlyshort time, the manufactory is merely more than one hour maybe can not influence the condition of the workers. With the flaws of the experts, the evidence is also unreliable to support the argument.
Finally, the arguer presumes if the manufactory reduce one hour working time, the accidents will decrease immediately. It is aan unconvincing presumption of the arguer. We assume the presumption of the去of the above are all valid, nevertheless, maybe the manufactory has its fatal problems. For instantsinstance, the equipments of the manufactory are old-fashioned thanthan前应该用比较级啊 the other manufactory, or maybe the experience of the workers is less than the other, or the conductors of the manufactory are not have more ability than the other and so forth. Without compared the several factors with the other factory, we can not draw the conclusion the manufactory will turn better in sorting an working hour.
In the argument, the evidences seemingly more convincing at first glance, nonetheless, the argument has more fatal flaws substantially. More elements are not compared with the past time and have certain unconvincing hypotheses, they all result the argument are so reliableunreliable
这篇不论从时间上还是表达上都有进步！加油！！
[ Last edited by superficial on 2005-12-15 at 10:34 ]作者: gtrand 时间: 2005-12-17 04:05:27
The argument cites the one-hour-extraordinary working time than the other manufactory result in more job accidents.不通。到底什么是动词，cites还是result in？extraordinary是非凡的意思，不是extra的意思；one-hour-extraordinary这种连接法也不行。cites the longer work shifts in Alta Manufacturing as the only reason behind its on-the-job accidents, which are thirty percent more than nearby Panoply Industries over the last year. To support the recommendation (conclusion), the arguer compares the condition with a nearby manufactory and 原文第一句已经包含了比较的意思。除了时间外，原立论的作者并没有比较其它的条件。删。 alsocites the suggestion of experts, who believe the one-extraordinary hour is result in the workers tired and not concentrate on. 专家们并没有这么说。that fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers are to be blamed for many such accidents. At first glance, the several evidences seemingly more convincing, however, 没有动词；而且如果however夹在两个完整的句子中间，前面一定要用分号，不能用逗号。没有比较，也就不能用more。the argument seems convincing; when I think them over I found it is so unreliable and unconvincing.think与found时态相互矛盾。a closer inspection reveals that it ignores a variety of factors and thus is unsound.
First of all, the arguer consider, in the past year, the manufactory has more than on-job-accident than the other manufactory account for the one-hour-extraordinary working time. 不通。consider, has, account for哪个是主动词？而且，account for之前是原因，后面是现象，用在这里正好把原立论中的因果关系弄颠倒了。the arguer attributes the greater number of on-the-job accidents in Alta Manufacturing to the duration of its work shift, which is one hour longer than that in Panoply Industries. But he oversimplifies the issue. At firstfirstly, we can not know the percentage of accidents in several years ago, so without compared with before we can not conclude the thirty percent is more than ever or less than past. Maybe the manufactory has decreased the percentage of accidents than before. Secondly, in a year we can not draw any conclusion about the thirty percents accidents whether it is profitable or expenses. 原立论数据两个问题：一是没有绝对数字，仅一个相对比例透露的信息很少。假如一个工厂３起事故，另一个４起，那么这个差别就不是特别大，尤其是如果有４起事故的工厂规模比另外一个大得多的话更是如此；第二是数据样本太少，只有一年的，人们无法知道事故多是孤立事件还是普遍趋势。作者在这里涉及到了第二个问题，但表达需要更清晰。至于作者提出的第二个反驳理由profitable or expense则与要讨论的问题不相干。[u]Maybe the manufactory has promoted the equipments and brought in new technology which the workers don not acquainted and the workers work very hard on new equipments and learning the new technology and caused the accidents increasingly, however, the accidents maybe more necessary to the future of the manufactory. 这里应指出，原立论忽略了其它因素导致事故的可能性。accident maybe more necessary to ...这句话有很大问题，事故怎么对企业的未来是必要的呢？Finally, the fatal problem is the arguer can not show us the product of the two manufactory whether are homogeneous or not, if not the two manufactories are not have comparability which is not convincing us. 这是很有力的反驳，即两家工厂是否具有可比性的问题。好象可以与前面有关其它因素的内容结合起来。We need more details about the two manufactories otherwise we can not conclude the accents are caused the one-hour-extraordinary working time.
Furthermore, the arguer seemingly cites a strengthen evidence about the experts what said, whereas, the recommendation of the experts are based on the potential hypotheses which the worker has worked many hours and felt fatigue and distracted. What evidences can made us draw the conclusions in the arguments? Perhaps, in the experts' assumption, the conclusion could be the right, however, the arguer short the evidence to support it. We can not exclude the possibility about the other manufactory worked in a shortly time, the manufactory is merely more than one hour maybe can not influence the condition of the workers. With the flaws of the experts, the evidence is also unreliable to support the argument.
这是有力的反驳，即题中所涉及的工厂工人上班时间虽然比另外一家的工人多一个小时，但并不一定超过了他们的限度。此外还可以指出，专家只是说很多事故是由睡眠不足引起的，并不是说所有的事故都是如此，工作性质不同，引发问题的主要因素也不同。
Finally, the arguer presumes if the manufactory reduce one hour working time, the accidents will decrease immediately. It is a unconvincing presumption of the arguer. We assume the presumption of the above are all valid, nevertheless, maybe the manufactory has its fatal problems. For instants, the equipments of the manufactory are old-fashioned than the other manufactory, or maybe the experience of the workers is less than the other, or the conductors of the manufactory are not have more ability than the other and so forth. Without compared the several factors with the other factory, we can not draw the conclusion the manufactory will turn better in sorting an working hour.对。指出有其它因素需要考虑，不仅仅是睡眠的问题。还可以指出，缩短工时并不能保证工人能得到充足的睡眠，因为他们未必用这个多出来的一小时睡觉；更谈不上保证能提高生产率了。
In the argument, the evidences seemingly more convincing at first glance, nonetheless, the argument has more fatal flaws substantially. More elements are not compared with the past time and have certain unconvincing hypotheses, they all result the argument are so reliable.