【big fish】3月25日Argument237-by jjooyy

jjooyyUID: 2704028

TOPIC: ARGUMENT229 - The following appeared as part of a memo from the manager of a hazardous-waste disposal company.
"Our new plan will help us better protect our staff against exposure to toxic chemicals: we are fitting each new safety suit with an alarm that will sound in the main control booth when the suit is punctured. The control booth will notify the managers on duty, who will then take the necessary steps to ensure employees' safety. In addition to the obvious safety-related benefits, the fast reaction time will ensure minimal work stoppage and thus result in increased worker productivity and company profitability."
WORDS: 313          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2010/3/24 21:22:45

The memo maintains that through the new plan, a growth of worker productivity and company profitability could be reached. However, there are some logic fallacies, some of which I would point out as below.

First of all, it is also possible for staff exposed to toxic chemicals even if their safety suits are not punctured. The suit could only protect the most body part of a worker, not all of the body. Since the company is hazardous-waste disposal manufacturing, workers who operate disposal are likely to be more or less exposed to toxic chemicals with their exposed part, such as hands, faces and so forth. Without a solution, the exposure problem would hardly be eliminated.

In addition, it is too late for the managers on duty to come to the worker. Once the accidents happen, the worker would be poisoned by toxic chemicals by no time. There is no time for the managers to get informed and to go to the spot. The result of the plan is that, managers could only ask other workers who see the scene to calm down, and take the worker to hospital, which other workers nearby are also able to do that.

Finally, even assuming the new plan could stop the exposure to toxic chemicals quickly, the growth of worker productivity and company profitability is of little credit. The productivity is always based on workers' efficiency and concentration, which the new plan does not care about. Simply preventing the exposure of workers does not amount to increasing workers' productivity. In addition, company profitability also involves many elements, which the argument fails to mention, such as the cost of disposal progress and workers' salaries. Perhaps, the new plan costs more as it need to buy a large amount of safety suits for workers, and thus the company gain less profit in the end, since worker productivity does not increase significantly.

To conclude, increasing worker productivity and company profitability is unconvincing, as it stands. Because staff can be exposed in other parts of their bodies, the reaction methods are not truly immediate, and it is likely that the company would not increase workers' productivity and its profitability. To further prove the plan is justifiable, the manager should provide more evidence to justify the viability of the plan.

昨天写2I2A，非常恶心。。。313是30分钟内的，一直计时不成功。。。