Argument210 敬请大家赐教，谢谢. 请留下链接，方便回拍

Archer1123UID: 206148

210
The following is a letter to the editor of a news magazine.
"Clearly, the successful use of robots on missions to explore outer space in the past 20 years demonstrates that robots could be increasingly used to perform factory work more effectively, efficiently, and profitably than human factory workers. The use of robots in factories would offer several advantages. First, robots never get sick, so absenteeism would be reduced. Second, robots do not make mistakes, so factories would increase their output. Finally, the use of robots would also improve the morale of factory workers, since factory work can be so boring that many workers would be glad to shift to more interesting kinds of tasks."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
outline:
1. false analogy.外太空探索和工厂生产不同
2. 不生病但是要发生故障
3. 只是按命令执行任务，控制程序出错就出错
4. 即使不出错，也不保证产量上升
5. 造成部分工人失业，
6. 只考虑利，未考虑弊

In the argument, the author claims that robots could be increasingly used to perform factory work more effectively, efficiently and profitably than human factory workers, which is unfounded and cannot be accepted under the close examination. Though the author quotes the successful use of robots in outer space and some advantages of robots to substantiate the conclusion. At first glance, it is seems reasonable and plausible, but on the second thought, as a matter of fact the conclusion is not persuasive as it stands.

To begin with, the author's deduce based on a false analogy. There is no evidence to verify it is similar enough to make an analogy between the mission to explore outer space and to the use in factory. There are so many differences between the two statuses, such as the goal, the environment and the cost.

Moreover, we admitted the robots never get sick, but it does not guarantee the robots can always work well. The robot is only a kind of advanced machine, and there is something wrong with the machine in some time. Maybe it will spend more time and much money on finding the reason and repairing the robots.

Furthermore, the author fails to convince us that the robots do not make any mistake. The robots are controlled by certain programs. If the control program is wrong, the robots will act as the incorrect command and make mistake consequently. The worse thing is the robots do not have any thoughts like the human being and never "think" what they did is wrong or not, which will bring more lose.

In addition, the common senses tells us the output is influenced by the combination of the material supply, the management, the equipment status and so on. Even if the robots would never make mistake during the produce procedure, it is unwarranted to increase the factory output.

Besides, the use of the robots might result in some workers' unemployment, which will down the morale of factory workers, not improve it. Because the number of position in a factory is constant, if the robots replace the workers, the position provided to worker should decrease. We have good reason to doubt that the factory could offer enough job to the worker, whether it interesting or not.

Last but not least, the author only considers the advantage of the robots, while fails to take into account the disadvantage. How about is the cost of robots that can do the same job as an experienced worker? How about is the expense of maintaining the robots can work continuously without any mistake? There are many factors that can effect the effective and efficient of the robots.

To sum up, based on what discussed and analyzed above, it is clear that the argument is invalid and misleading, and the conclusion reached in the argument is too presumptuous and hasty to be accepted. To make it more convincing, the author should gather more scientific and specific data, provide more receiving and efficient evidence to support it.

molly1984UID: 2123299

Your viewpoints are quite original to me, from which I get a lot of inspirations, thank you
:)
As for suggestions, I think you could elaborate each paragraph with more supporting evidences, not just mention them, but develop them into details, for example you could give some possibilities after you say “There are many factors that can affect the effectiveness and efficiency of the robots.”
Keep on progressing and good luck in your AW!
:cool:

[ Last edited by molly1984 on 2005-8-12 at 11:57 ]

Archer1123UID: 206148

thank u for your comment and i benefit great from it.
good luck to u

by the way, may i modify  your  composition?

硬柿子UID: 204138

In the argument, the author claims that robots could be increasingly used to perform factory work more effectively, efficiently and profitably than human factory workers, which is unfounded and cannot be accepted under the close examination. Though the author quotes the successful use of robots in outer space and some advantages of robots to substantiate the conclusion. At first glance, it is seems reasonable and plausible, but on the second thought, as a matter of fact the conclusion is not persuasive as it stands.

To begin with, the author's deduce based on a false analogy. There is no evidence to verify it is similar enough to make an analogy between the mission to explore outer space and to the use in factory. There are so many differences between the two statuses, such as the goal, the environment and the cost.

Moreover, we admitted the robots never get sick, but it does not guarantee the robots can always work well. The robot is only a kind of advanced machine, and there is something wrong with the machine in some time. Maybe it will spend more time and much money on finding the reason and repairing the robots.

Furthermore, the author fails to convince us that the robots do not make any mistake. The robots are controlled by certain programs. If the control program is wrong, the robots will act as the incorrect command and make mistake consequently. The worse thing is the robots do not have any thoughts like the human being and never "think" what they did is wrong or not, which will bring more lose. <如果机器人瘫痪，将带来更大的损失，如果生产效率高的话>
In addition, the common senses tells us the output is influenced by the combination of the material supply, the management, the equipment status and so on. Even if the robots would never make mistake during the produce procedure, it is unwarranted to increase the factory output.

Besides, the use of the robots might result in some workers' unemployment, which will down the morale of factory workers, not improve it. Because the number of position in a factory is constant, if the robots replace the workers, the position provided to worker should decrease. We have good reason to doubt that the factory could offer enough job to the worker, whether it interesting or not.

Last but not least, the author only considers the advantage of the robots, while fails to take into account the disadvantage. How about is the cost of robots that can do the same job as an experienced worker? How about is the expense of maintaining the robots can work continuously without any mistake? There are many factors that can effect the effective and efficient of the robots.

To sum up, based on what discussed and analyzed above, it is clear that the argument is invalid and misleading, and the conclusion reached in the argument is too presumptuous and hasty to be accepted. To make it more convincing, the author should gather more scientific and specific data, provide more receiving and efficient evidence to support it.

<论证的还是比较圆满的>

硬柿子UID: 204138

你这个argument 我没什么可改的，倒是从你这里获得了一些错误点，我没有考虑周全的~~~~

如果有时间，帮我看看 https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... B%D3%B2%CA%C1%D7%D3