Argument92【六人作文小组】第1周第3次作业

YodaUID: 2570075

Argument92
提纲：
1. Just says “many works”, how many? And whether it is the real reason of their absences?
2. There is no sufficient evidence to prove that the declination of unscheduled absences has direct connection with the on-site program in Bridgewell Corporation. So it is inappropriate to deduce the conclusion to implement on-site children program.
3. No data proves the program will increase productivity.
Words:498

In this article the arguer gives a fact that many working parents absent out of schedule due to their children arrangements, which happens in Techforce Computer Company. By citing the example about the on-site children program of Bridgewell Corporation, the arguer deduces a conclusion that it will undoubtedly reduce the unscheduled absences and increase immensely productivity. It seems that the evidence supports the conclusion quite sufficiently, while in actual fact the logic is not firm enough.

Firstly, the arguer gives the fact happens in Techforce Computer Company that many working parents report their children arrangements are a major reason for absenteeism from jobs. Notice that the arguer uses the word "many", but not an accurate figure, which reveals the doubt here: how many working parents are there in the company? what the portion of the workers surveyed among all working parents in the company? Besides, the parents surveyed say their children problems are a major reason, but is this the real reason? Are there any other reason that the parents do not want to refer to? Maybe the children problems are just the excuses of the workers. So the workers surveyed, the number of them and the reason the workers give are not convincing enough.

Secondly, there is no sufficient evidence to prove that the declination of unscheduled absence has direct connection with the on-site program in Bridgewell Corporation. The arguer just gives the truth that one year after implementing the on-site program, the absences declined by 25 percent, seems it is the program that result in the declination, but there are two major problems: the time is just one year, but when prolonged, will the absences still decline? are there direct connection between the program and the declination? The arguer just simply presents the result, but fails to analyse the relationship between the program and the result. Besides, it is in the Bridgewell Corporation where the truth comes out. Are the two companies have anything in common, or just quite distinct from each other? Will the method also be suitable to the computer company? Therefore the arguer fails to convince us that the method will be sure feasible in the computer company.

Thirdly, at the end of the article, the arguer says the program will significantly increase productivity, which I really doubt. If the on-site program is executed, will the company and workers spend extra time and money on the children? Will the workers be able to concentrate on the work? Will the children distract their parents' attention, which would result in the declination of the productivity? At this point the arguer fails to give enough evidence to prove it.

In sum, the arguer does not explorer and analyses the data and the evidence, based on which the decision is made. So the conclusion is not convincing either. To make the decision feasible, the arguer should pay more attention to the relations between the absences and the program based on sufficient and enough evidence and data.

levinshireUID: 2559564

In this article the arguer gives a fact that many working parents absent out of schedule due to their children arrangements, which happens in Techforce Computer Company. By citing the example about the on-site children program of Bridgewell Corporation, the arguer deduces a conclusion that it will undoubtedly reduce the unscheduled absences and increase immensely productivity. It seems that the evidence supports the conclusion quite sufficiently, while in actual fact the logic is not firm enough.

Firstly, the arguer gives the fact happens in Techforce Computer Company that many working parents report their children arrangements are a major reason for absenteeism from jobs. Notice that the arguer uses the word "many", but not an accurate figure, which reveals the doubt here: how many working parents are there in the company? what the portion of the workers surveyed among all working parents in the company? Besides, the parents surveyed say their children problems are a major reason, but is this the real reason? Are there any other reason that the parents do not want to refer to? Maybe the children problems are just the excuses of the workers. So the workers surveyed, the number of them and the reason the workers give are not convincing enough.(这一句再改改吧)

Secondly, there is no sufficient evidence to prove that the declination of unscheduled absence has direct connection with the on-site program in Bridgewell Corporation. The arguer just gives the truth that one year after implementing the on-site program, the absences declined by 25 percent, which seems it is the program that resulted in the declination, but there are two major problems: the time is just one year, but when prolonged, will the absences still decline?(一年降25%已经足够了吧，第二年就算不降，这一点貌似不是什么大毛病) are there direct connection between the program and the declination? The arguer just simply presents the result, but fails to analyse the relationship between the program and the result. Besides, it is in the Bridgewell Corporation where the truth comes out. Are the two companies have anything in common, or just quite distinct from each other? Will the method also be suitable to the computer company? Therefore the arguer fails to convince us that the method will be sure feasible in the computer company.

Thirdly, at the end of the article, the arguer says the program will significantly increase productivity, which I really doubt. If the on-site program is executed, will the company and workers spend extra time and money on the children? Will the workers be able to concentrate on the work? Will the children distract their parents' attention, which would result in the declination of the productivity? At this point the arguer fails to give enough evidence to prove it.(说得好)

In sum, the arguer does not explorer and analyses the data and the evidence, based on which the decision is made. So the conclusion is not convincing either. To make the decision feasible, the arguer should pay more attention to the relations between the absences and the program based on sufficient and enough evidence and data.