计时第一次写出来的两篇文章！求大神看看大概在哪个档（卑微

SeemoreGlassUID: 4040162

Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take.

In my personal opinion, most of the questions are intertwined and related, and that solving a current problem could cause a series of consequences that are not anticipated. We should also note that, by dealing with problems while considering the potential consequences, it is highly possible that we could save ourselves from most of the negative possible outcomes because of risk management. I do agree that the most urgent problems should be solved as fast as possible, but problems should be executed through a detailed plan while anticipating the consequences incurred by the solution.
The most urgent problem right now is probably COVID-19. The effect on environment due to usage of medical protection tools have already exposed to humans. Most of the medical protections such as gloves and masks are limited to up to one time. However, compare to the future environmental impact, it is ethical to argue that, we should take care of the millions of patients dying in the hospital instead of the environmental issue. It is true that the marine animals are affected by the plastic pollution, but saving human lives as much as possible is the most important task that government and society should be tackling. For these type of urgent problems especailly related to human lives, it is apprently better to save humanity than considering the long lasting impact.
It is not saying that, however, environmental problems are not urgent. Rather, the earth is burning and heating up right now. Compare to the COVID-19 issue, the heating earth is rather a long term battle which takes decades of efforts to find a balance between an eco life and industrialization in the developing courtries. Unlike COVID-19, which could be solved by developing vaccine and medicine as a solution that both represent the leap in biomed, solving an environmental issue need to listen to the voice of the people, debate on policies regarding to pollution, and finding other ways to replace the pollutant in order to maintain our current efficiency -- no one would like to go back fifty years in exchange for a healthier earth due to the avarice of human nature. For this type of problem that demands years of debate and execution, coming up with a detailed research plan should be the considered rather than abnadon it.
Yet let's reflect upon the COVID-19 pandemic. There are abundant of evidence supporting that most of the terrible pandemic are incurred by human themselves. Exploiting natural resources and taking the land capriciously for granted allowed the virus and bacteria that were safely away from humans to contact with the human society. Reflecting upon this evidence, I argue that while tackling the long term problem may not seem as urgent to some people, it does avoid human society from plunging into problems like the current pandemic.
In conclusion, both problems must be considered and solved. However when the urgency is highly related to humanitarian crisis, the problem should be solved immediately without hesitation and complete focus. It is important, while we do not have a life threatening issue, we must solve the anticipated problems of the future because planning for the future always prevent us from getting into a chaotic scene like today.

________________________________________________________________________

The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of a manufacturing company.

"During the past year, workers at our newly opened factory reported 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than workers at nearby Panoply Industries. Panoply produces products very similar to those produced at our factory, but its work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. Experts say that fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers are significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents. Panoply's superior safety record can therefore be attributed to its shorter work shifts, which allow its employees to get adequate amounts of rest."

Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.

This explaination is valid, of course. However, it oversimplified the issue. Sleep deprivation could be one of the many factors contributed to the on-the-job accidents, but other factors such as safety regulations and the worker's adequacy could contribute to the higher rate of injurt happened in the company.
Although producing similar product, the the safety regulations devoted into the production could be slightly different. Since Panoply is onsite longer than the new factory, it must have followed a more strict regulation than the new factory did, and maybe experienced the same safety problems before. The amount of capitals devoted in regular checking and examining the protection on workers, and the expenses on worker's safety education could be different from the new company's. It is also possible that the machines that Panoply are using had a more well-rounded protection than the machines that the new company is using. They could've set up emergency buttons or programs when the machine is at danger of hurting the worker. While devoting much more into preventing the accidents from happening, it is false to completely attribute the injury rate on longer working shift.
It is also possible that the workers than are employed in Panoply are more well-trained and experienced than the new company's employees. Panoply were in the area first, so it probably already employed all the exprienced workers in the area. Since the factory is relatively new, it is possible that the workers are still being trained, or never being trained at all before they started working. Experts are always less likely to get injured in the production than novice, which caused the outcome of higher injury rate in the newly opened factory.
In addition, one hour less shift time does not complement for sleep deprivation. The worker may not use the shortened working hours for sleep, but rather part time jobs in order to make up for the loss of the hourly wage in order to maintain their daily expenses. Shortening working shifts may not bring the expected results of higher efficiency or lower injury rate, but may even have impaired workers' life quality, and force them to go to other places to work multiple jobs to maintain their current life quality.
In conclusion, although long working hour is accountble for explaining the injury rate, but attributing everything on fatigue and sleep deprivation incurred by the working hour is simply too hasty. Oversimplifying the cause could not bring a lower injury rate. The vice president should look at more perspectives and make changes accordingly.