[a习作temp] argument178 求拍 [复制链接]

Elspethes
UID: 2447311

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 50
注册时间: 2008-1-14
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2008-2-19 13:58:02 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

第一次发上来,请大家多指正~~

The following appeared in the annual report from the president of the National Brush Company.
"In order to save money, we at the National Brush Company have decided to pay our employees for each brush they produce instead of for the time they spend producing brushes. We believe that this policy will lead to the production of more and better brushes, will allow us to reduce our staff size, and will enable the company factories to operate for fewer hours---resulting in savings on electricity and security costs. These changes will ensure that the best workers keep their jobs and that the company will earn a profit in the coming year."

The author claims that the National Brush Company has to pay the employees for each brush they produce instead of for the time they spend producing brushes to increase the company’s profits. To support the recommendation, the author points out that the policy will bring about a series of good results, such as more and better brushes, smaller staff size, savings on electricity and security costs and so on. However, close scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it lends little support for the recommendation.

The threshold problem with the argument is that the author assumes that the policy results in better brushes produced. However, this might not be the case. Since employees are paid for the number of brushes they produce, they tend to spend less time in producing a single brush to produce more brushes, thus earning more money. As a result, the quality of every brush instead declines because of the shorter time spent on it. Thus I strongly disagree with the author that the policy will result in better brushes produced.

Another problem with the argument is that the recommendation might not be practical. As we all know, most manufacturing companies use assembly lines. Any product is the result of the cooperation of all the workers. Thus it is difficult for employees to work on their own, equally difficult for employers to count the number of brushes every employee produces a day. Considering all the practical problems, the author’s recommendation is not sound.

The third problem with the argument is that the author too hastily assumes that a declining cost will result in more profits. Since profits is the function of not only costs but also revenues. If the brushes do not sell well, the company will be faced with a declining revenue. And if the revenue declines by a greater amount than the costs, the company’s profits will instead decline. Without considering all the factors that might influence a company’s profits, I cannot accept the author’s recommendation.

Finally, the author overlooks the probable negative effects of the implementation of the policy. If employees stand the risk of being fired and are demanded too much, they maybe not careful enough when working, thus resulting a lower working efficiency and lower quality, or they might even organize a boycott to fight against the policy. If that is the case, the company will definitely suffer a lot.

To sum up, the recommendation is not well supported. To bolster it, the author must prepare for the declining quality of brushes produced. The author also has to consider the practical limitations of conduct such a policy. To better assess the recommendation, I will need detailed cost-benefit analysis of the policy. To further strengthen the recommendation, the author has to account for all the possible negative effects of the proposal.

[ 本帖最后由 Elspethes 于 2008-2-20 13:28 编辑 ]