ARGUMENT210机器人在工厂 互拍高频！！

MIMOSARLUID: 2112846

210The 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."


Starting from the fact that robots were used successfully to explore out space in the past 20 years, the author assumes that robots could be increasingly used to perform factory work. In addition, the arguer provides that the use of robots has advantages that never get sick, never make mistakes and then the factories' output would be improved. Besides, the arguer assumes that the works in factory will be glad to shift new interesting kinds of tasks.  Then the author claims that the efficiency, profits will be increased by the use of robots. Though the statement is well presented, further reflection reveals that it suffers from several flaws.

First of all, the arguer rests on an assumption that the successful use of robots in exploring outer space could automatically lead the successful use of robots in factory. There is no evidence to prove that the use of robots in factory will get success. Are there any robots invented to serve for factory? If during these twenty years there is no any kind of robots invented for factory, then it is impossible for the use of robots in factory. How about the cost of those robots? If the cost is too expensive too afford by those factories, it is also impossible for the using of robots instead of workers. Without give more evidence to prove the possibility of the usage of robots, we cannot be convinced the author's claim.

Furthermore, the arguer assumes that those robots never get sick, so absenteeism would be reduced. It may be true that robots never get sick, but what we should pay attention to is that robots is a kind of machine, and it needs maintenance and repair. How about those cost of maintenance? Moreover, robots do not make mistakes? Being a kind of machine if the **has wrong, then it system should be plunged into jam. The author ignores the feedback of robots. So there is no guarantee to prove the increase of the output. In addition, the works job is substituted by robots and they have to learn new knowledge and find new jobs. It is entirely possible those workers would be very disappointed and the morale will decline.

Last but not the least, there are many factors control the getting of profits. Granted that the out put was increased, without the needs in market there is no guarantee of the profits. Moreover, how about those opponents? If several strong opponents have already controlled the market, then it renders the profits getting from the use of robots suspicious to us. The author's failure to investigate other factors maybe effect the profits renders the conclusion based on it suspicious to us.

As it stands, the statement is not well reasoned. Before we accept the claim that the efficiency, profits will be increased by the use of robots in factories, more work need by providing direct evidence to prove that the use of robots could be really decrease cost and increase profits. Besides, the argument could be further improved by evaluating other alternatives.