Argument79 by tequilawine 有拍必回

tequilawineUID: 2702008

TOPIC: ARGUMENT79 - The following appeared in a magazine for the trucking industry.

"The Longhaul trucking company was concerned that its annual accident rate (the number of accidents per mile driven) was too high. It granted a significant pay increase to its drivers and increased its training standards. It also put strict limits on the number of hours per week each driver could drive. The following year, its trucks were involved in half the number of accidents as before the changes were implemented. A survey of other trucking companies found that the highest-paid drivers were the least likely to have had an accident. Therefore, trucking companies wishing to reduce their accident rate can do so simply by raising their drivers' pay and limiting the overall number of hours they drive."
WORDS: 257          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2010-2-25 16:16:14




Form arguer proposal, we should raise drivers' pay and limit the overall number of hours they drive in order to reduce the accident rate. Without further consideration and explanation, it seems insufficient to follow this advise, and obviously there exists some flaws in its logical relationship and so on.




In the first place, the quoted company actions to reduce car accidents is from three aspects-one being pay increase, another being training standard increase, the last one being limited driving hours. And it works in the follow year, as the arguer said. But what we don't know if the result comes form all of them or just either one or two of them, we can not simply just pick up two of them as the main reason to solve the problem.





Secondly, from the other survey of other trucking companies, it is said that highest-paid drivers are the least likely to have had an accident. Even we admit that, it also has nothing to do with the initiative motion to low the rate. Pay attention to the word highest. It means comparing with each other driver, only highest-paid can be safe, what about the others? What we need is the whole, not a few. It is just fallacious to document the relation between pay and low rate.




Further more, simply just follow the two steps suggested by august, it is no good for other companies. I mean the company already pay a salary higher than the Longhaul company, should it just update it without considering interest of company? Another important illusion made by conclusion is that limit on the number of hours per week are not tantamount to the limit on the overall number they drive. You know, you can also get the per week working hours decreased in the condition which total number of working hours increase by other measurements such as curtail holidays.





In sum, i think author just fail to convince us to follow his suggestion and it would be better to delve more into the issue and get a more straightforward answer.