ARGUMENT 186 求改

boyhc202UID: 2871922

TOPIC: ARGUMENT186 - The following is a recommendation from the director of personnel to the president of Professional Printing Company.

"In a recent telephone survey of automobile factory workers, older employees were less likely to report that having a supervisor present increases their productivity. Among workers aged 18 to 29, 27 percent said that they are more productive in the presence of their immediate supervisor, compared to 12 percent for those aged 30 or over, and only 8 percent for those aged 50 or over. Clearly, if our printing company hires mainly older employees, we will increase productivity and save money because of the reduced need for supervisors."



In this argument, the personnel director of Professional Printing Company recommends that PPC should hire older employees to increase productivity and save money for the company. The author's recommendation is basd on a telephone survey in which older employees in automobile factory are more productive than other younger employees without a supervisor. It sounds reasonable at first glance, but the survey is not reliable enough and there exist fallacies of analogy in this argument.
First of all, the survey is conducted in an automobile factory. As we know automobile industry is totally different from printing industry. While the author's conclusion is based on this survey. The author provides no evidence to support the analogy between automobile factory workers and printing company employees. It is possibile that older employees in automobile industry will more productive without a supervisor while it is opposite in printing industry. Without sufficient evidence to convince us this analogy, the conclusion seems to be unrealiable.
In addition, even if we admit this analogy that it is similiar between two industries above, the author's conclusion depended on the survey is still questionable. The author provides little further information about the survey. Little samples cannot be representative for the whole. Besides, the reliability of the respondents is suspectable. Lacking evidences to demonstrate questions presented above, we have reasons to reject the conclusion.
Furthermore, the conclusion that employ older workers rathan than younger ones will increase productivity is groundless. Even though we accept the survey temporarily for the moment. The survey only reflects that it will increase older employees' productivity without a supervisor, but we can't conclude that older people are more productive than younger works without additional information in the argument. We could assume that younger works' productivity is much more than older works' productivity in normal. That is to say, we could also conclude that it may more productive if PPC employ younger works rather than older works. What's more, the author commits casual-and-effect fallacy that the increase of productivity will save money for the company. In the author's conclusion, employing more older employees will reduce the number of supervisors, but the author provides no evidence to explain the reason why it will lead to save of money. Take other factors into consideration, older works often ask for higher salary, it will conclude an absolutely opposite conclusion that it may increase the company's payout.
To sum up, the conclusion is not well-reasoned because of the incredible survey. If the author insists on the recommendation, he should strengthen his evidences to bolster the conclusion. For example, he should provide direct evidence to connect automobile industry and printing industry. At the same time, the author must give more information about the survey to make it more credible. Last but not the least, the author should also provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that it will increase productivity and save money for the company. One main point is that older works are more productive than younger works at same condition, and it will actually make profits for the company.

wdx19861106UID: 2821198

1# boyhc202
"In a recent telephone survey of automobile factory workers (几个工厂?属于怀疑调查的内容，可有可无。一位前辈建议有攻击点的话，尽量别攻击调查的内容可信性。), older employees were less likely to report that having a supervisor present increases their productivity. Among workers aged 18 to 29, 27 percent said that they are more productive in the presence of their immediate supervisor, compared to 12 percent for those aged 30 or over, and only 8 percent for those aged 50 or over. Clearly, if our printing (和汽车厂工作相同吗？)Company hires mainly older employees; we will increase productivity（？） and save money（？） because of the reduced need for supervisors."

In this argument, the personnel director of Professional Printing Company（PPC） recommends that PPC should hire older employees to increase productivity and save money for the company（可以删除或改成from employ the supervisors）. The author's recommendation is based on a telephone survey in which older employees in automobile factory are more productive than other younger employees without a supervisor. It sounds reasonable at first glance, but the survey is not reliable enough and there exist fallacies of analogy in this argument.（这一句用的很普遍，建议你自己弄一句有自己特色的句子在考场上用）。

First of all, the survey is conducted in an automobile factory. As we know automobile industry is totally different from printing industry. While（，）the author's conclusion is based on this survey. The author provides no evidence to support the analogy between automobile factory workers and printing company employees. It is possible that older employees in automobile industry will more productive without a supervisor while it is opposite in printing industry. Without sufficient evidence to convince us this analogy, the conclusion seems to be unrealizable.（感觉说的没有实质内容，可以假设一些情况，多说几句一增加自己的判断。）

In addition, even if we admit this analogy that it is similar between two industries above, the author's conclusion depended on the survey is still questionable. The author provides little further information about the survey. Little samples cannot be representative for the whole. （好）Besides, the reliability of the respondents is susceptible. Lacking evidences to demonstrate questions presented above, we have reasons to reject the conclusion. （感觉太笼统了。）

Furthermore, the conclusion that employing odder workers rather than younger ones will increase productivity is groundless. Even though (,) we accept the survey temporarily for the moment. The survey only reflects that it will increase older employees' productivity without a supervisor (in the automobile factory), but we can't conclude that older people are more productive than younger works without additional information in the argument. We could assume that younger works' productivity is much more than older works' productivity in normal. That is to say, we could also conclude that it may more productive if PPC employ younger works rather than older works.(感觉缺乏说服力).What's more, the author commits casual-and-effect fallacy that the increase of productivity will save money for the company. In the author's conclusion, employing more older employees will reduce the number of supervisors, but the author provides no evidence to explain the reason why it will lead to save of money. Take other factors into consideration; older works often ask for higher salary, it will conclude an absolutely opposite conclusion that it may increase the company's payout.（这一段写的有点乱，攻击点着的挺好，重新组合一下应该不错的。）

To sum up, the conclusion is not well-reasoned because of the incredible survey. If the author insists on the recommendation, he should strengthen his evidences to bolster the conclusion. For example, he should provide direct evidence to connect automobile industry and printing industry. At the same time, the author must give more information about the survey to make it more credible. Last but not the least, the author should also provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that it will increase productivity and save money for the company. One main point is that older works are more productive than younger works at same condition, and it will actually make profits for the company.（这句太突兀了，和前文没相应的连接语）。