【Big Fish】03月27日Argument229--By 隐雾

隐雾UID: 2776185

TOPIC: ARGUMENT229 - The following appeared as part of a memo from the manager of a hazardous-waste disposal company.
"Our new plan will help us better protect our staff against exposure to toxic chemicals: we are fitting each new safety suit with an alarm that will sound in the main control booth when the suit is punctured. The control booth will notify the managers on duty, who will then take the necessary steps to ensure employees' safety. In addition to the obvious safety-related benefits, the fast reaction time will ensure minimal work stoppage and thus result in increased worker productivity and company profitability."
WORDS: 493+          TIME: 50min          DATE: 2010/3/27 10:23:41

The argument introduces a way to better protect staff against exposure to toxic chemicals by concluding that minimal work stoppage can result in increased worker productivity and company profitability. To support the conclusion, the argument makes a false analogy of the protecting measure with profits the company makes. The recommendation of the new plan appearing natural actually suffers a variety of flaws. The argument would be logically justified if specific information and thorough reasoning were presented.

Above all, the argument fails to reveal what the safety suit with an alarm formulates, how such a suit works, and the like procedures. Moreover, how the control booth and the managers on duty deal with a case remains unclear. It is necessary to demonstrate the process of the entire system step by step instead of the abstract and vague introduction stated. With a shortage of clear description of the protecting system, staff might not be confident with the protection. What if the suit is seriously punctured and booth fails to immediately notify the managers or the managers are not able to take necessary measures at once? Do the alarms on suits recognize what the chemicals are or how much toxic they are when suits punctured? And how do alarms and control booth get to communicate with each other about the exact information? What are the so-called "necessary steps" managers should take? What should staff in risk do by themselves? Obviously, knowing little about the new plan, one might doubt the efficiency of the protection and worker productivity is not sure to be increased.

In addition, the lack of data about the fast reaction time it takes to protect staff leads to a de-emphasis of the role of the sufficiency in the reasoning. For example, if it takes 5 minutes to stop relevant work procedure or 2 minutes allows the stoppage to complete, staff of course prefer the latter to the former considering their safety. However, considering how much more it will cost to diminish from 5min to 2min, the leader of the company might prefer the former instead. Thus, whether the total reaction time is fast enough must be presented.

Even if the problem discussed above is solved, the analogy is suspected to be responsible for the increased worker productivity and company profitability. The argument suggests, but does not prove, that minimal work stoppage result in increased worker productivity and company profitability. However, lacking more exact information about the cost spent on the protective system and relevant managers, the argument makes itself in a dilemma. One might consider that it costs a lot to buy the protective system and pay relevant managers. However much the worker productivity increases, it does not pay off. On the contrary, one might consider that if the safety-related benefits cause the productivity to increase, the company will make large amounts of profits in the long run. Obviously, only if both the cost and the profit are clearly stated can final conclusion be substantiated.

All in all, to make the audiences accept the new plan, the argument should provide more information about the exact description of such a protective system and its functioning procedures, the data of the total reaction time when a case occurs, as well as the factors that lead to good company profits. Besides, a further research on the manager, staff, and financial officers helps to better strengthen the argument.

topranUID: 2310216

TOPIC: ARGUMENT229 - The following appeared as part of a memo from the manager of a hazardous-waste disposal company.
"Our new plan will help us better protect our staff against exposure to toxic chemicals: we are fitting each new safety suit with an alarm that will sound in the main control booth when the suit is punctured. The control booth will notify the managers on duty, who will then take the necessary steps to ensure employees' safety. In addition to the obvious safety-related benefits, the fast reaction time will ensure minimal work stoppage and thus result in increased worker productivity and company profitability."
WORDS: 493+          TIME: 50min          DATE: 2010/3/27 10:23:41

你这argument比issue 长耶 ~~~

The argument introduces a way to better protect staff against exposure to toxic chemicals by concluding that minimal work stoppage can result in increased worker productivity and company profitability. To support the conclusion, the argument makes a false analogy of the protecting measure with profits the company makes. The recommendation of the new plan appearing natural actually suffers a variety of flaws. The argument would be logically justified if specific information and thorough reasoning were presented.

Above all（？？？）, the argument fails to reveal what the safety suit with an alarm formulates, how such a suit works, and the like procedures. Moreover, how the control booth and the managers on duty deal with a case remains unclear. It is necessary to demonstrate the process of the entire system step by step instead of the abstract and vague introduction stated. With a shortage of clear description of the protecting system, staff might not be confident with the protection. What if the suit is seriously punctured and booth fails to immediately notify the managers or the managers are not able to take necessary measures at once? Do the alarms on suits recognize what the chemicals are or how much toxic they are when suits punctured? And how do alarms and control booth get to communicate with each other about the exact information? What are the so-called "necessary steps" managers should take? What should staff in risk do by themselves? Obviously, knowing little about the new plan, one might doubt the efficiency of the protection and worker productivity is not sure to be increased.
（好有攻击性啊，问的针针见血，但会不会问句太多了些，丧失了句式的多样性？）

In addition, the lack of data about the fast reaction time it takes to protect staff leads to a de-emphasis of the role of the sufficiency in the reasoning. For example, if it takes 5 minutes to stop relevant work procedure or 2 minutes allows the stoppage to complete, staff of course prefer the latter to the former considering their safety. However, considering how much more it will cost to diminish from 5min to 2min, the leader of the company might prefer the former instead. Thus, whether the total reaction time is fast enough must be presented.
（真厉害）

Even if the problem discussed above is solved, the analogy is suspected to be responsible for the increased worker productivity and company profitability. The argument suggests, but does not prove, that minimal work stoppage result in increased worker productivity and company profitability. However, lacking more exact information about the cost spent on the protective system and relevant managers, the argument makes itself in a dilemma. One might consider that it costs a lot to buy the protective system and pay relevant managers. However much the worker productivity increases, it does not pay off. On the contrary, one might consider that if the safety-related benefits cause the productivity to increase, the company will make large amounts of profits in the long run. Obviously, only if both the cost and the profit are clearly stated can final conclusion be substantiated.

All in all, to make the audiences accept the new plan, the argument should provide more information about the exact description of such a protective system and its functioning procedures, the data of the total reaction time when a case occurs, as well as the factors that lead to good company profits. Besides, a further research on the manager, staff, and financial officers helps to better strengthen the argument.
===========================
惊
呆
掉！！！！！
好文

隐雾UID: 2776185

谢谢楼上的鼓励！
那个关于句式多样性……我思考了一下……有道理！！
Above all……不知道是什么问题呢？我只是想说“首先”，就是随便选的连接词而已