【Flyer杀G作文组】07月06日Argument132-By 潇

红绡UID: 2839171

ARGUMENT 132

132. The following appeared in an editorial in the local newspaper of Workville.
"Workers should be allowed to reduce their workload from 40 to 25 or even 20 hours per week because it is clear that people who work part-time instead of full-time have better health and improved morale. One store in Workville, which began allowing its employees to work part-time last year, reports that fewer days of sick leave were taken last year than in previous years. In contrast, the factory in Workville, which does not allow any of its employees to work part-time, had a slight increase in the number of days of sick leave taken last year. In addition, a recent survey reports that most of the store employees stated that they are satisfied with their jobs, while many of the factory employees stated that they are dissatisfied with their jobs."
难度：★★

In this statement, the author concludes workers should be allowed to reduce their workload or working time relied on belief that people who work part-time have better health and improved morale that full-time ones. This argument cites a research involving store and factory in Workville. The former began allowing its employees to work part-time last year who had taken fewer days of sick leave last year, while the latter does not allow any of its employees to work part-time with a slight increase in the number of days of sick leave last year. Such as these evidences showing several flaws in line of supporting the conclusion need to be improved or offset.

Firstly, the author believe that part-time workers are more healthy and improved morale that full-time ones. There is no data indicating the range and number of sampling to support this point. In case, if the part-time employees have more healthy body conditions or better mental state than the full-time ones, while part-time ones have more work that the full-time workers, part-time workers would still probably have more healthy and morale. It means that the two objectives have not comparability and even cannot prove the difference between part-time working and full-time working. Thus, it seems that the author’s belief cannot remain firm as it stands.

Secondly, the author shows a few figures to define proper working time which should be reduced from 40 to 25 or even 20 hours per week. However, the editorial has not provide any elements showing these figures’ reasonability and authentic. Also, we do not know how and where these figures accrue. Thus, this argument produces with illegibility and groundlessness. If the author wishes to enhance this argument, enough materials and effective origin of the figures related are inevitable to be offered.

Thirdly, comparison on working time and body and mental situation between workers of the store and factory in Workville has been put out to crutch the ultimate argument. Unfortunately, it still has not provide great endorsement because its impreciseness. On one hand, we do not know any concrete information about the store and factory, such as if their working assessments or contents distinct with each other. Maybe the job in store is easier to do and pay less time or energy than job in factory. In that case, it does not matter if workers in store are part-time or full-time. Because if the employees in store who are taken full-time do not need to pay much energy on work or they have much free time, it is obvious there is no difference between part-time and full-time. Once they are taken as part-time employees, they might spend much time on games, tourism or watching movies which would be possible to take much energy, so that they cannot keep better healthy and morale.

Finally, the author has mentioned part-time workers are satisfied with their jobs. In contrast, full-time workers are dissatisfied. As well as, this view has no reference and unintelligible sampling confuse us to learn more information to analysis the reality of the argument. We cannot learn about any data about the workers’ jobs, body situation, mental state or else.

To sum up, the argument is weak on several grounds. To strengthen it the argument’s proponent must provide clear evidence containing reasonable sampling, the original of the figures, researched workers’ body and mental situation and some related healthy state, the diversity of jobs of the store and factory in Workville. The author has to prove the facticity and authoritative of proof.