Argument8 请大家拍砖！谢谢！~~

BerlinbearUID: 207694

Argument11.
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.”

1、        事故发生可能有多种原因，比如违规操作，技术生疏等，不一定是因为疲劳，睡眠不足。
2、        即使事故是由疲劳引起，然而，导致睡眠不足的原因也可能有很多，比如娱乐过度等。
3、        Alta和提到的另一家企业不一定具有可比性，可能不是一个行业的。即使同行业，另一家企业事故率低可能因为保护措施等做的更好，而与工人睡眠时间无关。

The mome suggests that Alta Manufacturing should shorten each of the three work shifts by one hour for the reason that their employees will have adequate amounts of sleep and increase productivity. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer points out that Panoply Industries where the work shifts are shorter has 30% less than Alta Manufacturing. In addition, the memo cites a perspective of experts that numerous job accidents are due to fatigue and sleepless. How ever, the arguer neglects certain important concerns, which must be addressed to prove. I find this argument suffers from several flaws.

For one thing, the arguer fails to assure me that a high frequency of job accidents in Alta Manufacturing is an inevitable result of fatigue and sleep deprivation. Only except some experts' belief is there little evidence to prove that the cause- and -effect relationship. It is greatly possible that many other alternatives led to accidents after fatigue and sleepless. Such alternatives may include the fact that some works in Alta Manufacturing is not skilled enough about how to operate the machines as workers in Panoply Industries, or Alta Manufacturing did not train their worker about how to avoid the dangerous when they are working and obey the rules of manipulating implements but Panoply Industries may recognition the importance of security operation and give a specific exercise to their workers. It appears reasonable, therefore, for the Alta Manufacturing to focus on these possible matters rather than decide to decrease one hour of each work shifts.

What is more, even assuming that some accidents in Alta Manufacturing take place because of workers’ fatigue or sleep deprivation, in order to accept the author’s solution to this problem we must premise that Alta’s employees are going to spend the additional hours of free time to sleep or rest.  However, the memo does not mention any proof that can indicates they would use the time in the expected way. It is completely possible that some works are intend to have recreation or even do another job in this extra time. Under the circumstance, the author cannot deduce the convincingly conclusion that reducing the length of works shifts in Alta would promote the security possibility.

Last but not the least, it is no doubt that the author ignore a compatible foundation referring to which kinds of enterprises they are between Alta and Panoply. For instance, if Alta is a construction corporation fashioning buildings and Panoply is a advertisement company which focusing on the creative thinking and designation, obviously, it is commonly accepted that a construction firm faces a higher probability to have accidents so that there is no necessary to compare two different realms about accidental occurrences. And when it comes to the number of accidents at Alta and Panoply, the author fails to consider that the per-worker accident rate may show that Alta is indeed safer than Panoply in that the total number of workers are not equal between this two companies. Or perhaps Panoply is not representative of industrial companies generally, and maybe other industries companies with shorter shifts have an ever higher accident rates. All in all, since argument lies on very restrained information we cannot take the authors’ recommendation seriously.

To sum up, the suggestion for shorten shift hours in Alta is not well supported. To persuading us that decrease work shifts would help reduce Alta’s job accident rate, the memo’s author must apply specific and powerful evidence that work shift length is responsible for some of Alta’s accidents and supply evidence to support the final conclusion that a lower accident rate would in fact increase overall worker productivity.

sallyxinduUID: 2131253

“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.”

1、        事故发生可能有多种原因，比如违规操作，技术生疏等，不一定是因为疲劳，睡眠不足。
2、        即使事故是由疲劳引起，然而，导致睡眠不足的原因也可能有很多，比如娱乐过度等。
3、        Alta和提到的另一家企业不一定具有可比性，可能不是一个行业的。即使同行业，另一家企业事故率低可能因为保护措施等做的更好，而与工人睡眠时间无关。
呵呵，很好的３个理由，都有力度

The mome suggests that Alta Manufacturing should shorten each of the three work shifts by one hour for the reason that their employees will have adequate amounts of sleep and therefore increase productivity. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer points out that Panoply Industries where the work shifts are shorter has 30% less accidents than Alta Manufacturing. In addition, the memo cites a perspective of experts that numerous job accidents are due to fatigue and sleepless. How ever, the arguer neglects certain important concerns, which must be addressed to prove. I find this argument suffers from several flaws.
最后一句和前面连接的不是特别好，觉得这样可能更顺畅点：...which must be addressed, and I would like to represent some of the flaws in the argument as a means to demonstrate the arguer's unconvincing reasoning.

For one thing, the arguer fails to assure me that a high frequency of job accidents in Alta Manufacturing is an inevitable result of fatigue and sleep deprivation. Only except some experts' belief is there little evidence to prove that the cause- and -effect relationship.觉得这句改为：except(for)some experts's belief, there existes little evidence to prove the cause-and-effect relationship.更好点，我对only except的句型不是很熟悉，呵呵，如果确定可以的话你的表达就是很好的． It is greatly possible that many other alternatives led to accidents after改为instead of 好点吧， fatigue and sleeplessness. Such alternatives may include the fact that some works in Alta Manufacturing is not as skilled enough去掉 about 改为in, skill in how to operate the machines as workers in Panoply Industries, or Alta Manufacturing did not train their worker about how to avoid the dangerous when they are working, and obey the rules of manipulating implements but Panoply Industries may recognition the importance of security operation and give a specific exercise to their workers.obey那旧可以断句了，要不然and不知道练哪里，容易引起误解． It appears reasonable, therefore, for the Alta Manufacturing to focus on these possible matters rather than decide to decrease one hour of each work shifts.

What is more, even assuming that some accidents in Alta Manufacturing take place because of workers’ fatigue or sleep deprivation, in order to accept the author’s solution to this problem we must premise that Alta’s employees are going to spend the additional hours of free time to sleep or rest.  However, the memo does not mention any proof that can indicates they would use the time in the expected way. It is completely possible that some works are intend to have recreation or even do another job in this extra time. Under the circumstance, the author cannot deduce the convincingly副词不能修饰名词 conclusion that reducing the length of works shifts in Alta would promote the security possibility.
这段非常好，很清楚明了

Last but not the least, it is no doubt that the author ignore a compatible foundation referring to which kinds of enterprises they are between Alta and Panoply.这句不是很自然，觉得可以改成：the author ignores the nature of Alta and Panloply, whether they are of the same nature so that could be made comparison with eacher other,or they are completely of different natures so that the　comparison per se is meanlingless.　呵呵，不知道怎么样，怎么感觉还越弄月复杂了。 For instance, if Alta is a construction corporation fashioning buildings and Panoply is a advertisement company which focusing focuses on the creative thinking and designation, obviously, it is commonly accepted that a construction firm faces a higher probability to have accidents so that there is no necessary to compare two different realms about accidental occurrences. And when it comes to the number of accidents at Alta and Panoply, the author fails to consider that the per-worker accident rate may show that Alta is indeed safer than Panoply in that the total number of workers are not equal between this two companies. Or perhaps Panoply is not representative of industrial companies generally, and maybe other industries companies with shorter shifts have an ever higher accident rates. All in all, since the argument lies on very改为so  restrained information that we cannot take the authors’ recommendation seriously.

To sum up, the suggestion for shortening shift hours in Alta is not well supported. To persuading us that decrease work shifts would help reduce Alta’s job accident rate, the memo’s author must apply specific and powerful evidence that work shift length is responsible for some of Alta’s accidents and supply evidence to support the final conclusion that a lower accident rate would in fact increase overall worker productivity.
结尾总结得不错啊