ARGU178求拍~~ 2月8号北京考~~~有排必回

xujichen1989UID: 2527209

178. The following appeared in the annual reportfrom 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."




In this argument, the author claims that the company could earn aprofit by paying employees for each brush they produce instead of for the timethey spend producing brushes and leaves some evidence and assumptions tosupport this claim. Although this argument might seem reasonable at firstglance, close scrutiny reveals that it is actually ill-convinced.


First, in the first place, the author assumes that it is fair to payemployees for the amount of brushes that they make. Although this is entirelypossible, the author fails to provide solid evidence that this is actuallyfeasible. It is very easy to count employees' work by time. However, the authordoes not supply any solution about how to count the amount of brushes that eachworker produces. Perhaps there are needs for extra employees to do thiscounting job, thus maybe the total numbers of employees would not reduce.


Secondly, the author's conclusion rests on the groundless assumptionthat the procedure of brush producing can be completed by a single worker.However, the author provides no evidence about this. In fact, it is more likelyto increase the working efficiency by having a stream line to produce. If abrush is produced by several employees on a stream line, it is hard for thecompany to pay them for each brush which a single worker produces.


Thirdly, it is possible that workers are stimulated and make morebrushes, but the author cannot convince me that workers would make betterbrushes. The author does not provide any solid evidence on this point of view.Perhaps workers reduce the time that they spend on each single brush to makemore brush. If the company cannot keep their productions on a constantly highlevel, customers will possibly sue the company and reject its brushes. As aresult, the company's profit may suffer damage rather than increase.


Thelast but not the least, the author fails to build a causal relationship betweenthe new policy and savings on electricity and security costs. It is reasonableto doubt that what the author assumes will not happen in reality. The authorleaves no evidence to show that the company will not keep their original worktime to produce more brushes.
In thisway, the cost of electricity will not be reduced. Also, workers, who try tomake more brushes, perhaps suffer more dangers in the producing procedure. Toprevent accidents, the company perhaps needs more safe security. From thispoint of view, author cannot convince me that the security costs would be cut.


Insum, the author's argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence orsound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. Inorder to draw a better conclusion, the arguer need to do more detailedinvestigation and collect more solid data which would prove that workers wouldproduce in a faster and better way, and the best workers keep their jobs ratherthan the fastest workers.

doudou4208UID: 2755549

请问,求拍是想让别人帮你改的意思么?ps,我10号考,加油噢~~~:victory:

xujichen1989UID: 2527209

2# doudou4208 是额。。兄弟不嫌弃 可以帮我改改