Tough Break (再战200610G) argument提交贴

相见不如怀念UID: 2229685

此贴供所有队友提交每日argument作业，请大家将argument都发在这一个帖子里，不要单独开贴，方便大家查找，也算节约论坛资源。

修改作业的，请大家跟贴以红字标出修改部分。

请大家补充。:victory:

[ 本帖最后由 相见不如怀念 于 2006-7-14 11:37 编辑 ]

licheewu28UID: 2131182

题目：ARGUMENT 12 - 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."
字数：443          用时：未限时          日期：2006-7-15

提纲：1.过去不代表现在和未来的情况，时间不同，经济背景不同；
      2.非充分原因——他因造成工人疲劳和睡眠不足，如家庭负担、兼职；
      3. 错误类比：P的措施对A不一定有效，两公司存在差异，如工作性质，其他保护措施。
The vice president of Alta Manufacturing in this argument maintains that the company can reduce on-the-job accidents by shortening shift work hours according to Panoply Industries' experience. But he takes it for granted with persuasive evidence and true facts. No data, no study, no facts, how can he make such a rush conclusion? As follows, the analytical mistakes he commits in the memo will be listsed.
At the beginning, the president employs the fact that Panoply had less on-the-job accidents in the past year. Abviously, the mistake he makes is to consider that a past situation will keep. We all know that different years are accompanied with different economic background and social conditions. What happened in the past would take place in another state. A single year cannot illustrate a common and forever situation. What's more, when the president shows the percentage, he does not offer the total employees of the two companies. If Alta has 1000 employees while Panoply owns 100, the percentage will make no difference. Therefore, the president should provide a typical situation with convincing data to make his evidence effective.
In the second place, the memo believes that the fact that Panoply had less accidents benefits from less work hours. Will Alta necessarily have less accident by reducing one work hour? It is rush to say yes since there are other causes leading to fatigueness and sleep deprivation among. For example, some workers enjoy too many hours of entertainment after work, or some suffer from heavy family burden, or even some possibly have part-time job. Any other possibilities can cause fatigueness and sleep deprivation. In this case, without ruling out any other causes, the president cannot guarantee that one less work hour will reduce on-the-job accidnents in Alta.
In addition,even if Panoply benefit from one less work hour measure, the measure will not help Alta. The president makes false analogy between two different companies. It is fully possible that Panoply belongs to the trade line while Alta is engaged in architecture, which is more dangerous. Or Panoply takes many safety measure to prevent its employees from accidents while Alta attaches little importance to safety measures. Since there are differences between the two companies, simply copying a single measure from Panoply will not help Alta a lot as the president argues.
Since the president makes the above mentioned logical mistakes and fails to include warranted evidence, his conclusion would not be useful. If he hopes his argument to be of siginificance, he has to show the following information: comparativeness of different years, effetivenees of thirty percentage, no other causes influencing workers’ rest after work, work similarity of the two companies.

相见不如怀念UID: 2229685

提纲:
1.错误类比: P的情况并不太表A是一样的状况,无从比较.
2.专家的意见并不能证明作者的提议.而且专家的意见不一定正确.
3.其他减少事故发生率的方法.

In this argument, the arguer concludes that once they shorten the work shift, the employees will get more amounts of sleep, which will reduce the number of on-the-job accidents. To justify this claim, the arguer points out that Alta had thirty percent more on-the-job accidents than the nearby industries, whose work shifts are one hour shorter. In addition, the arguer takes experts' reference that they believe worker's fatigue is a significant contributing factor for the accidents.

First of all, the arguer commits a fallacy of false analogy. We are not informed of any other points of Alta and Panoply, but only thirty percent more and one hour shorter. So, the arguer cannot refer to Panoply's experience for Alta. It is quite possible that Panoply has more advanced technology and facility, which enable both less accidents and less hour work shift for their workers. It is also possible that there are many other reasons responsible for Alta's thirty percent more accidents. Perhaps, their workers are not well informed that how to handle the machines; perhaps, working environment there is so poor that workers are quite easy to get into the accidents.

In the second place, experts' opinion does not lend direct support to what the arguer assumes. Without guarantee that workers will definitely take more rest get more sleep with one hour from each of the three work shifts, it is possible that they may not take the time to do what the arguer assumes. Perhaps, workers just make themselves more exhausted and tired with one more hour's break, and still no any recover from the fatigue. On the other hand, there is no specific numbers of how many on-the-job accidents come from the fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers, the arguer cannot convince simply by the experts' opinion.

Last but not least, there are many other alternatives that would help to reduce on-the-job accidents. Workers should get more on-the-job training, while industries should use good enough machines that cause fewer accidents by them own. Management involves solving the potential accidents by stipulating relevant principles and rules.

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to demonstrate that fatigue is the key reason that causes more on-the-job accidents. Additionally, the arguer must provide evidence to guarantee that workers will get more sleep with the hour cut from the work shifts.

liepinUID: 2229986

我作业写错了，先占个位置。

不过这样贴在一个帖子里面，是否有点感觉乱乱的，都不知道是谁的了特别是改过之后的。单独发在论坛里面，然后贴链接在小组帖子里面不好么？这样可能还增加outsider 修改作业的机会呢！

Anyway,我只是建议，看小组大多数成员的意思！

相见不如怀念UID: 2229685

原帖由 licheewu28 于 2006-7-15 10:23 发表
提纲：1.过去不代表现在和未来的情况，时间不同，经济背景不同；
      2.非充分原因——他因造成工人疲劳和睡眠不足，如家庭负担、兼职；
      3. 错误类比：P的措施对A不一定有效，两公司存在差异，如工作性质，其他保护措施。
The vice president of Alta Manufacturing in this argument maintains that the company can reduce on-the-job accidents by shortening shift work hours according to Panoply Industries' experience. But he takes it for granted with persuasive evidence and true facts. No data, no study, no facts, how can he make such a rush conclusion? As follows, the analytical mistakes he commits in the memo will be listsed.

At the beginning, the president employs the fact that Panoply had less on-the-job accidents in the past year. Abviously, the mistake he makes is to consider that a past situation will keep. We all know that different years are accompanied with different economic background and social conditions. What happened in the past would take place in another state. A single year cannot illustrate a common and forever situation. What's more, when the president shows the percentage, he does not offer the total employees of the two companies. If Alta has 1000 employees while Panoply owns 100, the percentage will make no difference. Therefore, the president should provide a typical situation with convincing data to make his evidence effective.（我觉得这个不是攻击的重点。应该多分析为什么alta的事故率高30％？其他可能的原因？最后一句分析的不清楚，应该是如果A有100人，事故率60％，那么60个人出了问题。但P有1000个人，事故率30％，那么300个人出了问题，这样可能P公司更多的worker遭遇事故问题，所以此数据不说明问题。可以开始说30％不能说明问题，然后即使有30％，那么可能的其他原因有哪些？并不一定就是work shifts的时间长短问题）

In the second place, the memo believes that the fact that Panoply had less accidents benefits from less work hours. Will Alta necessarily have less accident by reducing one work hour? It is rush to say yes since there are other causes leading to fatigueness and sleep deprivation among. For example, some workers enjoy too many hours of entertainment after work, or some suffer from heavy family burden, or even some possibly have part-time job. Any other possibilities can cause fatigueness and sleep deprivation. In this case, without ruling out any other causes, the president cannot guarantee that one less work hour will reduce on-the-job accidnents in Alta.

In addition,even if Panoply benefit from one less work hour measure, the measure will not help Alta. The president makes false analogy between two different companies. It is fully possible that Panoply belongs to the trade line while Alta is engaged in architecture, which is more dangerous. Or Panoply takes many safety measure to prevent its employees from accidents while Alta attaches little importance to safety measures. Since there are differences between the two companies, simply copying a single measure from Panoply will not help Alta a lot as the president argues.

Since the president makes the above mentioned logical mistakes and fails to include warranted evidence, his conclusion would not be useful. If he hopes his argument to be of siginificance, he has to show the following information: comparativeness of different years, effetivenees of thirty percentage, no other causes influencing workers’ rest after work, work similarity of the two companies.  

其他两点都没问题，但是在攻击排序上是否按重点先后来会比较好？供讨论啊。

相见不如怀念UID: 2229685

也可以，但是要记得把链接放进来。^_^

licheewu28UID: 2131182

原帖由 相见不如怀念 于 2006-7-15 10:56 发表


In this argument, the arguer concludes that on ...

In this argument, the arguer concludes that once they shorten the work shift (hours应该是减少三个班次的工作时间), the employees will get more amounts of sleep, which will lead to (这样是不是顺接一些) reduce (reducing与上面相应的更改) the number of on-the-job accidents. To justify this claim, the arguer points out that Alta had thirty percent more on-the-job accidents than the nearby industries (Industries专有名词), whose work shifts are one hour shorter. In addition, the arguer takes experts' reference that they believe worker's fatigue is a significant contributing factor for the(删掉) accidents.

First of all, the arguer commits a fallacy of false analogy. (Good! 指出致命性错误)  We are not informed of any other points of Alta and Panoply, but only thirty percent more and one hour shorter. So, the arguer cannot refer to Panoply's experience for Alta. It is quite possible that Panoply has more advanced technology and facility (语法错误facilities), which enable both less accidents and less hour work shift for their workers. It is also possible that there are many other reasons responsible for Alta's thirty percent more accidents. Perhaps, their (its 指代Alta’s) workers are not well informed that how to handle the machines; perhaps, working environment there is so poor that workers are quite easy to get into the accidents.

In the second place, experts' opinion does not lend direct support to what the arguer assumes. Without guaranteeing that workers will definitely take more rest and (忽略了) get more sleep with one hour from each of the three work shifts, it is possible that they may not take the time to do what the arguer assumes. Perhaps, workers just make themselves more exhausted and tired with one more hour's break, and still get no any(删掉,和no重复) recovery(n.形式) from the fatigue. On the other hand, there is no specific numbers of how many on-the-job accidents come (arise) from the fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers, the arguer cannot convince (vt.及物动词) others simply by offering (给出专家们的意见) the experts' opinion. 我在寄托的一篇同主题写作上看到有关对一些前提的观点，认为此类作为一种设定性的说明条件不应该是我们攻击的目标; 我手头有的新东方黄予给的ARGU分析也未对这点指出错误(有点教条了). 我自己今天也对这点攻击了一把,后来觉得越来越不对劲
Last but not least, there are many other alternatives that would help to reduce on-the-job accidents in Alta (这段都未提起应该是谁采取措施,有必要在这里先给出一个逻辑主语). Workers should get more on-the-job training, while industries should use good enough machines that cause fewer accidents by them own (不是很明白这句的用意,指P用了很好的设备机器而使accidents少了?). Management involves solving the potential accidents by stipulating relevant principles and rules.

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to demonstrate that fatigue is the key reason that causes more on-the-job accidents in Alta (同样地,逻辑主语). Additionally, the arguer must provide evidence to guarantee that workers will get more sleep with the hour cut from the work shifts.
层次很清晰,
如果想加字数,可以在每段剖析之后反面再述一下观点

munickyUID: 2122843

In this argument, the author draws a conclusion that the company Alta Manufacturing (A) should cut their work shifts by one hour for the nearby company Panoply (P) whose work shifts are one hour had fewer accidents. However, careful scrutiny reveals that this conclusion lacks sufficient evidence to support.

First of all, the term" 30 percent" is too vague to be evidence to illustrate that there are more accidents in A, we are not provide the basic number of accidents in A, and it is entirely possible that the number of accidents in A is small, then " 30 percent " plays no important role in the production. Thus, to judge if it is necessary to carry out the same police as P and if it is effective of this police, we need more details of the accidents in A.

Even if there are so many accidents in A that it is necessary for A to take some solutions, yet the speaker assumes there are no other factors rather than fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers leading to those accidents, and this might not be the case, for example, it is likely that the facilities in A are old and dangerous for workers, it is also possible that the workers in A lack experience and skills ,then accidents also may happen frequently. In a word, there are lots of differences between two companies, and without eliminating all those possibilities, the author can not convince me that the policy which is effective in P would carry out the same results in A.

In addition, the author ignores other solution may also help them to reduce the rate of the accidents happening. For instance, A may introduce more advanced facilities, they can release the burden of production on workers ,they may also increase the efficiency of production. A can also reduce the required tusk for each worker, it is also useful for worker to recover from fatigue. In sum , there are lots of ways for A to reduce the number of accidents and increase productivity.

All in all, the author lacks enough evidence to support the conclusion, to better demonstrate his/her conclusion, there should be more details about the number and reason of those accidents.

zhuluUID: 2134300

WORDS: 359          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-7-16
时间超了，但是还是补起来了，超时10min。
The argument is well presented, but not well reasoned. In this argument, the arguer attempt to convince us the fact that in order to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents and increase productivity, their three work shifts should be shorten by one hour so that their employees would get adequate amounts of sleep. To support the conclusion, the author cited the fact that Panoply industries' work shift are one hour shorter than Alta. Moreover, the arguer also cited that experts believe the fatigue and sleep deprivation are the contributing factor in many on-the-job accidents. As it stands, the arguments defies simple logic and suffers from several critical fallacies.

In the first place, the arguer cited a comparison between Alta and Panoply .The Alta's accidents rate was higher because Panoply's work shifts are one hour less than Alta. As we know, there are quite a lot factors which would result in high accidents rate, such as the essence of work, the security of working conditions, the workers' operating skills, and so on. It may be the fact that the work in Alta Manufacturing was much dangerous than Panoply industries. It may also be the fact that the security of working condition of Alta is much safer and reasonable than Panoply, although the work was the same between Alta and Panoply. Moreover, provided that the work, security of working condition are the same between the two companies, the Alta' workers are less skilled when they are operating machines. In another word, careless operating skill may also lead to higher accident rate.

In the second place, the arguer cited the indication that expert believe that fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers are the contributing factor. Even though the indication is true, it does not mean the fact that the Alta's workers are too exhausted and deprived by sleep, then the workers  frequently make faults and the on-the-job accidents is much higher than Panoply. No clarified evidence of survey is conveyed here about the workers' feeling in Alta. It may be the fact that the workers in Alta do not feel fatigue or exhausted at all.

Finally, the arguer concluded that in order to reduce the on-the-job accidents rate thereby increase productivity, their three work shifts should be shorted by one hour to insure the sleep of their workers. On the one hand, there is not any certain correlation between accidents reducing and productivity increasing. It may be the fact that the on-the-job accidents are not serious enough to affect the productivity. On the other hand, the arguer cited on hour less in work shifts of Panpoly in the comparison, but concluded that three work shifts should be shortened by one hour. No conspicuous scientific investigation or research are listed here to prove that one hour should be shortened in three work shifts instead of two hours or half an hour to insure adequate sleep. Moreover, adequate sleep may be only one minimum factor which results in higher accidents rate. Other related aspects, such as working conditions, and working training should also be considered and analysed reasonably.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument lack credibility since evidence cannot lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer needs to hold a investigation toward the true reason of higher accidents rate in Alta. Moreover, other information of survey should also be conveyed that whether the workers’ sleep is adequate or not if the work shifts are not shortened. Otherwise, the argument, the argument is logically unacceptable.

相见不如怀念UID: 2229685

请红魔和路路互相修改，谢谢。

zhuluUID: 2134300

[quote]原帖由 相见不如怀念 于 2006-7-15 10:56 发表
提纲:
1.错误类比: P的情况并不太表A是一样的状况,无从比较.
2.专家的意见并不能证明作者的提议.而且专家的意见不一定正确.
3.其他减少事故发生率的方法.

In this argument, the arguer concludes that once they shorten the work shift（shifts）, the employees will get more amounts of sleep(adequate sleep), which will reduce the number of on-the-job accidents. To justify this claim, the arguer points out that Alta had thirty percent more on-the-job accidents than the nearby industries, whose work shifts are one hour shorter. In addition, the arguer takes experts' reference(take sb's reference 挺好！) that they believe worker's fatigue is a significant contributing factor for the accidents.有没有觉得第一段结尾差点什么东西？比如我来一段：As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

First of all, the arguer commits a fallacy of false analogy(开门见山，赞！). We are not informed of any other points （specific situation of these two company and all-around comparison between them是否好一点？）of Alta and Panoply, but only (just only )thirty percent more and one hour shorter. So(我喜欢Hence，Therefore，As a result), the arguer cannot refer to Panoply's experience for Alta. It is quite possible that Panoply has more advanced technology and facility, which enable both less accidents and less hour work shifts for their workers. It is also possible that there are many other reasons responsible for Alta's thirty percent more accidents(more accidents ). Perhaps, their workers are not well informed that how to handle the machines; perhaps(分号后面是完整句子，要大写), working environment there is so poor that workers are quite easy to get into the accidents（the working environment in Alta had not enough security seeting to insure their workers' safty感觉是不是好一点）.这段话结尾呢？好像缺点什么？



In the second place, experts' opinion does not lend direct support to what the arguer assumes(不错，要向你学习段首开头，模板很重要). Without guarantee that workers will definitely take more rest （差个and） get more sleep with one hour from each of the three work shifts, it is possible that they may not take the time to do what the arguer assumes. Perhaps, workers just make themselves more exhausted and tired with one more hour's break（这句话有点令人费解？明明多休息一个h，怎么会更加劳累呢？我觉得Argu还是要讲道理，但是讲道理不是讲歪理啊。打个比方，如果你是一个工人，跟你的老板说，为了让accidents降下来，我们需要更好的休息，多给我们一个h吧，老板跟你说：有可能你多休息一个h反而会更加劳累，所以不能多加这1h吧。你说作为工人，你心里会怎么想，你觉得这个老板在讲道理么？还是在讲歪理？如果老板这么说：我们A公司都是严格按照劳动法规定的劳动强度来安排休息时间，P公司之所以多一个小时，因为它们公司劳动强度太大，按照劳动法这样多一个小时是正常的。你觉得这样的老板说话是不是更加convincing？）, and still no any recover from the fatigue. On the other hand, there is no specific numbers（还是用number吧） of how many on-the-job accidents（不如改为how many percents of on-the-job accidents，你说那？)come from the fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers, the arguer cannot convince （us掉了）simply by the experts' opinion.

Last but not 掉了the least, there are many other alternatives that would help to reduce on-the-job accidents. Workers should get more on-the-job training, while industries should use good enough machines that cause fewer accidents by them own. Management involves solving the potential accidents by stipulating relevant principles and rules.

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to demonstrate that fatigue is the key reason that causes more on-the-job accidents. Additionally, the arguer must provide evidence to guarantee that workers will get more sleep with the hour cut from the work shifts. 我考试的时候也用的这个结尾，简直是一模一样啊，有时候我在想，这算不算剽窃雷同？会不会因为这样的千篇一律被扣分？

licheewu28UID: 2131182

原帖由 相见不如怀念 于 2006-7-15 17:16 发表


其他两点都没问题，但是在攻击排序上是否按重点先后来会比较好？供讨论啊。

回去看了，赞同你的意见，就是没能改好再帖上

licheewu28UID: 2131182

共用时间：30分2秒 +5    347 words +50
从2006年6月16日9时16分到2006年6月16日9时30分
------题目------
ARGU 147 The following appeared in an editorial in a business magazine.
'Although the sales of Whirlwind video games have declined over the past two years, a recent survey of video-game players suggests that this sales trend is about to be reversed. The survey asked video-game players what features they thought were most important in a video game. According to the survey, players prefer games that provide lifelike graphics, which require the most up-to-date computers. Whirlwind has just introduced several such games with an extensive advertising campaign directed at people 10 to 25 years old, the age-group most likely to play video games. It follows, then, that the sales of Whirlwind video games are likely to increase dramatically in the next few months.'
------正文------
Based on the survey, the author in this editorial predicts that Whirlwind video games would sell well and increasingly in the coming few months. To support his prediction, he provides his evidence that people at 10 to 15 years are the company's directing goal and they are most possibly to play Whirlwind vedio games. The argument is problematic and vacant with strong persuasive evidence.
First of all, there is no information to prove that people at 10 to 25 will necessarily play the games. A survey is cited as the supportive evidence to prove such people to be the sales orientation. But actually, there is fallacy of different scopes in that it is not people at the age who are interviewed in the survey while the campaign is directed at them. In this way, probably the compaign is a waste of time and money, and the goal will not go to play the games as hoped. Thus, since no evidence serves to show people at 10 to 25 to be major players, the author cannot guarantee the games to be increasingly sold well.
Furthermore, the editorial indicates that the games offer lifelike graphics requiring the most up-to-date computer. It is fully possible that such a factor would not be an advantage but a disadvantage for the games because probably most of players cannot afford an up-to-date computer, and thus give up to play the games. Even if they can own such computers, there are other factors influencing one to play games, such as games subjects or excitingness except lifelike graphics. What's more, if Whirlwind vedio games are of bad subjects, which is prohibited by social laws, they will never have a good market.
In addition, the author ignores the economic background at that time. One cannot be sure that a decling market will recover soon after a two-year period of depression. If economy is blue this year, people are unable to buy entertaining equipment even if they are interesting when they are busy with making living. Without taking the precondition into consideration, the author is rash to comes to conclusion about the games sales.
To sum up, the author should provide more evidence to support his own prediction: a prosperous economic situation, other factors attracting games players and an accurate survey showing potential consumers. Only with these supportive information, he can draw his conclusion.

AnddieUID: 2135826

Argument147

"Although the sales of Whirlwind video games have declined over the past two years, a recent survey of video-game players suggests that this sales trend is about to be reversed. The survey asked video-game players what features they thought were most important in a video game. According to the survey, players prefer games that provide lifelike graphics, which require the most up-to-date computers. Whirlwind has just introduced several such games with an extensive advertising campaign directed at people 10 to 25 years old, the age-group most likely to play video games. It follows, then, that the sales of Whirlwind video games are likely to increase dramatically in the next few months."

In this argument, the arguer tries to convince us that the sales of Whirlwind video games is about to increase dramatically, as a result of the introduction of the company's new products and advertising campaign. To justify the claim, the arguer provides a recent survey about a video-game's most important features. A careful examination of this argument would reveal several critical flaws.

First of all, the arguer doesn’t present any details of the survey, including the number of samples and the percentage of the people who favor lifelike graphics, which are two crucial factors that determine the sales of Whirlwind’s new lifelike video games. The sale is not going to increase, especially not to increase “dramatically”, without the game’s taking sufficient proportion of the computer game market. Nor does the arguer provide the time and regions the survey took place. So it is reasonable if we doubt the authenticity and credibility of the survey, the main basis of the conclusion the arguer draws.

Secondly, the arguer rests on the gratuitous assumption that the decrease of sales during the last two years is a result of the improper kinds of video games the company has involved in and the lack of advertisement, but that is not always the case. We cannot omit the influence of Whirlwind’s competitors, the loss due to management errors and even the possibility of the decrease of the whole country’s average income. All these problems may affect the sales of Whirlwind’s products greatly and have long-term influences, while the arguer leaves all these things behind and simply suggests introducing some lifelike games. So I suppose the forecast that the arguer finally made is more like an imagination, rather than a well-founded conclusion.

Thirdly, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the lifelike games with extensive advertising campaign and the augment of its sales. On one hand, he ignores other factors that influence consumers, the most significant of which is the quality of product. Few people would buy a game just because it is their favorite kind or its advertisement is amazing. Sales would hardly increase if the lifelike games are badly developed, no matter how much Whirlwind advertises. On the other hand, according to the argument, the games require a most up-to-date computer, and this may cause Whirlwind to lose a large portion of its customers who cannot afford such a high-tech but expensive computer. Since the argument doesn’t provide any information about the games’ quality and consumers, we believe it is not valid to conclude that the sales would increase.

Lastly, it seems not so obvious that people aged 10 to 25 years old is the age-group most likely to play video games. The arguer just imagines the age bounds of the group without any survey or proof, which is not persuasive. In addition, an advertisement that directs at a certain age-group would cause consumers of other ages to lose their interests and finally bring loss to Whirlwind’s video game sales.

All in all, the argument is not reasonable as it stands. To make it more logical, the arguer would have to produce more evidence to prove that the sales would definitely increase. We need more evidence concerning the data of the survey, the reason why the sales decreased and the guarantee of its reversion.

zhuluUID: 2134300

[quote]原帖由 municky 于 2006-7-15 21:35 发表
In this argument, the author draws a conclusion that the company Alta Manufacturing (A) should cut their work shifts by one hour for the nearby company Panoply (P) whose work shifts are one hour had fewer accidents.（Argu基本的格式还是要的，此处应该加上，to support the conclusion, the arguer cited that……） However, careful scrutiny reveals that this conclusion lacks sufficient evidence to support.

First of all, the term" 30 percent" is too vague to be evidence to illustrate that there are more accidents in A, we are not provide the basic number of accidents in A, and it is entirely possible that the number of accidents in A is small, then " 30 percent " plays no important role in the production.（ 你想说，这个30％并不是什么很精确的含义，实际上如果基数不大，这不算什么。怎么说那？有点道理，从西方人的角度，一般情况下，第一段都是讲得重大逻辑漏洞，其实这个Argu的最大毛病不是30％啊！而在于high accidents rate of A，adequate sleep，1 hour more这三者之间的逻辑关系）Thus, to judge（justify） if(whether好点) it is necessary to carry out the same police as P and if it is effective of this police, we need more details of the accidents in A.我觉得第一段写得不好，不能自圆其说了，30％太vague，说不定很小，不会影响生产。然后，又说到需要知道A的accidents的细节？这个好像和这段话的主题扯得太远了！这样信马由缰很危险啊！

Even if there are so many accidents in A that it is necessary for A to take some solutions（这句话结构有问题，Considering about high accidents rate in A,it is necessary for A to……）, yet the speaker assumes there are no other factors rather than fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers leading to those accidents, and this might not be the case, for example, it is likely that(It may be the fact that会不会更好一些？) the facilities in A are old and dangerous for workers,（ 注意此处出现断句，需要连词）it is also possible that the workers in A lack （加上enough是不是更好） experience and skills ,then accidents also（这个also用的有点怪） may happen frequently. （终于找到这段话的第一个句号了，还是要把句子一个个断开，能够显得逻辑一些）In a word, there are lots of differences between two companies, （还是用句号吧，让后面的句子独立一些。）and without eliminating all those possibilities, the author can not convince me that the policy which is effective in P would carry out the same results in A.（chinglish太严重了，一句话说下来，没有断句，句子的逻辑性不好。这样的文字和措词，需要动大手术啊！同学你要警惕啊！）

In addition, the author ignores other solutions may also help them to reduce the rate of the accidents happening. For instance, A may（A may没看懂） introduce more advanced facilities, they can release the burden of production on workers ,they may also increase the efficiency of production. A can also reduce the required tusk for each worker, it is also useful for worker to recover from fatigue. In sum , there are lots of ways for A to reduce the number of accidents and increase productivity.其他的解决方案，是arguer的疏忽，还不算是逻辑错误，其实还有逻辑错误可谈，比如你可以谈谈shorten each of our three work shifts与get adequate amounts of sleep之间的逻辑错误，降低on-the-job accidents at Alta 和increase productivity之间的逻辑错误。说完了这些，再来谈谈arguer的疏忽，你看这样是不是更好一些？

All in all, the author lacks enough evidence to support the conclusion, to better demonstrate his/her conclusion, there should be more details about the number and reason of those accidents. 结尾太仓卒了！