argument210 我在GTER的第一篇，请猛拍！

molly1984UID: 2123299

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."

My response:
In this argument, the speaker alleges that in order to make factory work more effective, efficient and profitable, factory workers should be replaced by robots which are proved successful in outer space exploring missions in the past 20 years. However, I find this argument suffer from several critical flaws in its reasoning, which render the conclusion obtained upon it questionable, at best.

Firstly, the speaker didn’t compare the two totally different working conditions between outer space and common factories. On outer space missions robots are employed largely because of the tasks are often required to be carried out in extreme conditions: no air, no gravity, strong ultraviolet radiation and long periods of working time. Though in certain kinds of factories there are also deleterious working conditions, obviously that is not the case mentioned in this argument. Therefore is there necessity to replace workers by robots which are often not modest in their prices?

Secondly, the speaker gives reasons such as robots never get sick and do not make mistakes as supporting evidences to argue that the output will be increased. However, I don’t see there is causal necessity between them. As we know, robots are inevitably controlled directly by human or indirectly by computer programs designed by human, in this sense, though robots themselves may be good in quality and can precisely carry out the instructions, there still can be mechanical accidents, misoperations or program bugs caused by negligence of people that cumber the output and profits from increasing, while spending the same amount of money on other purpose that might bring much better effect, for instance, the training programs of its workers.   

Finally, the conclusion which says that the morale of workers may rise as a result of the application of robots that freed them from their boring positions is also quite doubtful. Usually the number of workers just fits the need of labors in a factory. So what if there are not so many vacant “interesting kinds of tasks” waiting there for the substituted workers to fill in? To maintain profit, the manager certainly will fire the unneeded workers. And at the same time, to compensate for the cost of newly introduced robots, the salaries or bonus of workers might be brought down. Can the pressure of facing unemployment and lower income bring up the morale in the factory?

In conclusion, the speaker mentions only the advantages of robots while overlooking the different conditions between the two cases and all the shortcomings of robots, such as being prohibitive in cost and easy to break down due to problems in the operating process. Without making a more comprehensive analysis on the factory’s reality and the feasibility of the robots, the conclusion the speaker reached can be only specious.   (words: 459)

[ Last edited by molly1984 on 2005-8-11 at 22:03 ]

Archer1123UID: 206148

偶的水平也不高，仅供参考哈，呵呵
cheer up & good luck!