argument12 请给砖头啊～～～

sallyxinduUID: 2131253

11. The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Alta Manufacturing.

“During the past year, Alta Manufacturing had thirty percent more on-the-job accidents than nearby Panoply Industries, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. Experts believe that a significant contributing factor in many on-the-job accidents is fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers. Therefore, to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents at Alta and thereby increase productivity, we should shorten each of our three work shifts by one hour so that our employees will get adequate amounts of sleep.”
Outline
1，        别的工厂事故发生率低不一定是因为他们的替换班时间短，可能是因为其他因素，如工厂安全设备好，工人的安全意识强，工厂的工作本来就不是太危险等。
2，        专家说事故主要是因为疲劳，但没有给出任何证据，
3，        缩短换班时间并不一定就能保证睡眠。
正文
Nowdays, as in a society where manufactories vehemently call for high productivity and competitive power among factories, the concomitant on-the-job accidents are emerging in an overwhelm momentum. Under such circumstance, the arguer presents several reasons for shortening shifts time as a means to guarantee workers’ safety. The argument, appearing to be plausible at first blush, has many flaws such as questionable assumptions, incomprehensive analysis and insufficient evidence.　I would like to point out some of its flaws in the following paragraphs.

The threshold problem of the argument is that the reasoning provided by the author lends no substantial support to the arguer’s assumption that Alta’s high accident attributes greatly to it’s comparatively long work shifts compared with its nearby Panoply Industries. Consider first,shorter shifts time of PI may not be the only cause that makes it a safe factory, however, it cannot be denied that there still exists some other reasons, for instance,the first-class safe equipment, better safe consciousness of its workers, secure work nature per se and the like of PI, that enable PI to be a safe manufactory.

Deep down, the arguer claims that experts believe fatigue and sleep deprivation are the main factors that leads to Alta’s on-the job accidents while furnish us with not even a shred of evidence, in this case, people would doubt experts’ statement’s credibility. Anyhow, expersts are no omnipotence and it’s common that they would make mistakes in judgement oftentimes. Consequentely, experts may make mistakes again this time on this issue and if this come out to be true, it carries some weight in the illogic of the argument.

What’s more, longer shifts time is not the equivalence of longer sleep time. There’s high possiblity that workers will not use this longer leisure time to have rests so as to they could be more energetic when in work, instead, they may visite their friends, go shopping and so forth during this time. In case of this, Alta’s stratagem for the sake of offering its employees more rest time would turn out to be totally in vain, yet at the expense of sacrificing more of its working time in which workers could produce more products and thereby enhance productivity.

In the final analysis, having viewed all the fallacies in the arguer’s reasoning, it is distinct that the argument is not well founded. Alta’s leaders are highly recommend to do more research as a way to find out the real causes of the on-the-job accidents before they decide on the modification of its shifts time schedule. In terms of this, Alta should pay more attention to training worker’s self-protect skills, ameliorating its manufacturing facilities.etc, instead of just cutting down the shifts time.

觉得是该说的都说了，也只有４4０个字，是不是太少了啊～～！希望大家多提意见

[ 本帖最后由 sallyxindu 于 2006-2-21 00:33 编辑 ]

Archer1123UID: 206148

11. The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Alta Manufacturing.

“During the past year, Alta Manufacturing had thirty percent more on-the-job accidents than nearby Panoply Industries, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. Experts believe that a significant contributing factor in many on-the-job accidents is fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers. Therefore, to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents at Alta and thereby increase productivity, we should shorten each of our three work shifts by one hour so that our employees will get adequate amounts of sleep.”
Outline
1，        别的工厂事故发生率低不一定是因为他们的替换班时间短，可能是因为其他因素，如工厂安全设备好，工人的安全意识强，工厂的工作本来就不是太危险等。
2，        专家说事故主要是因为疲劳，但没有给出任何证据，
3，        缩短换班时间并不一定就能保证睡眠。
正文
Nowdays, [Nowadays] as in a society where manufactories vehemently call for high productivity and competitive power among factories, the concomitant on-the-job accidents are emerging in an overwhelm momentum. Under such circumstance, the arguer presents several reasons for shortening shifts time as a means to guarantee workers’ safety. The argument, appearing to be plausible at first blush, has many flaws such as questionable assumptions, incomprehensive analysis and insufficient evidence.　I would like to point out some of its flaws in the following paragraphs.

The threshold problem of the argument is that the reasoning provided by the author lends no substantial support to the arguer’s [删掉arguer’s] assumption that Alta’s high accident attributes greatly to it’s comparatively long work shifts compared with its nearby Panoply Industries. Consider first, shorter shifts time of PI may not be the only cause that makes it a safe factory, however, it cannot be denied that there still exists some other reasons, for instance, the first-class safe equipment, better safe consciousness of its workers, secure work nature per se and the like of PI [不太理解这句的意思], that enable PI to be a safe manufactory.

Deep down, the arguer claims that experts believe fatigue and sleep deprivation are the main factors that leads to Alta’s on-the job accidents while furnish [furnishes] us with not [without] even a shred of evidence, in this case, people would doubt experts’ statement’s credibility. Anyhow, expersts [experts] are no omnipotence and it’s common that they would make mistakes in judgement [judgment其实可以直接说make wrong judgment or make mistakes] oftentimes. Consequentely [Consequently] experts may make mistakes again this time on this issue and if this come [comes] out to be true, it carries some weight in the illogic of the argument. [感觉这句话说得有点罗嗦了，Consequently, experts may make mistakes on this issue, which will carry some weight in the illogic of the argument.] [我个人的观点是专家的意见作为驳斥点比较难，还不如接受专家意见，但是专家所说的是一个普遍现象，不一定复合AF的实际情况，这样好像好处理点。]

What’s more, longer shifts time [不是shorten shifts time吗？] is not the equivalence of longer sleep time. There’s high possiblity [possibility] that workers will not use this longer leisure time to have rests so as to they could be more energetic [than the current] when [删掉when] in work, instead, they may visite [visit] their friends, go shopping and so forth during this time. In case of this, Alta’s stratagem for the sake of offering its employees more rest time would turn out to be totally in vain, yet at the expense of sacrificing more of its working time in which workers could produce more products and thereby enhance productivity. [恩，这点我没有想到，呵呵]

In the final analysis, having viewed all the fallacies in the arguer’s reasoning, it is distinct that the argument is not well founded. Alta’s leaders are highly recommend to do more research as a way to find out the real causes of the on-the-job accidents before they decide on the modification of its shifts time schedule. In terms of this, Alta should pay more attention to training worker’s self-protect skills, ameliorating its manufacturing facilities. etc, instead of just cutting down the shifts time. [结尾总结不错，学习ing]
[组长的语言比我好很多，特别是句子之间的连接，不错不错]

sallyxinduUID: 2131253

恩．谢谢，呵呵，特别是你指出的专家驳斥那段，可能换个着眼点更好写．哎～～～～我就怕在逻辑上不好啊