argument210

nancy_caoUID: 2111168

Argument210  第3篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：30分1秒   
从2005年8月11日21时12分到2005年8月11日21时30分
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
In this argument, the arguer concludes that robots could be increasingly used to perform factory work more effectively, efficiently, and profitably than human factory workers. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer points out several advantages that the use of the robots in factories would offer: the reduce of the absenteeism, the increase of the factories' output because of the less mistakes that robots would make, and the improvement of the morale of the factory workers. In addition, the arguer cites the example of the successful use of the robots on missions to explore outer space in the past 20 years. A careful scrutiny of this argument would reveal how unwarranted it is.

In the first place, the arguer assumes that there is a kind of robot that can complete factory works which are accomplished by the factory workers now, but the arguer provides no evidence that there is one which is suitable for every walk of the life. Even though I concede that there does exist one, the arguer is based on a false analogy between the factory works and missions to explore outer space. The arguer simply assumes that they are the same but he ignored that great difference between them such as the operation, the work scope and so on. Therefore, even though the robots could be proved effective in accomplishing the factory work, it is unfairly to conclude that the human workers should be replaced by the robots.

In addition, it is true that robots never get sick, but the arguer ignores that robots also may go out of orders and we also should spend money on the maintenance of the robots so that they could work normally. And profit is a factor of not only revenue but also of costs. It is entirely possible that the cost of the maintenance which the robots take will offset additional revenue. Thus, this may prevent the robots from being as profitable in the foreseeable future as the arguer predicts.

Anther flaw in this argument is that although I concede that the robots are seldom making mistakes, but as it is common knowledge that human being has their own mind to think which differs from the robots conspicuously. The robots just can do things which the inventor designed while human workers could do things more creatively, that they could have their own opinions which may lead to improve the efficiency of the product.

Finally, the author unfairly assumes that the use of the robots bears some relation to the morale of the factory workers. In contrast, the use of the robots may lead to results that less workers are need, thus some workers must face the problem that being laid off which may result in a array of society issues.

To sum up, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the use of the robots will necessarily lead to the increase of the profit. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information regarding the use of robots is suitable for all the walk of life.