【TRANSFORMER】_ARGUMENT226_0803

blade134UID: 2328542

226 The following appeared as part of a memo from the manager of an automobile manufacturing company.

"Because the demand for our automobiles is expected to increase dramatically, we need to open a new manufacturing plant as soon as possible in order to continue to thrive. Our marketing projections indicate that 80 million people will want to buy our automobiles, yet our existing plant can only produce 40 million automobiles. The new plant can be opened on a part-time basis, with workers from our existing site rotating responsibilities, until an operational staff can be trained. A major airplane manufacturer was extremely successful using this part-time rotating strategy when it opened its new plant five years ago."

21点前上传，大家加油

sherry_cherishUID: 2613601

今儿写抽风了。。。尝试不用模版  写了近2小时。。。。

The memo of the executive of the automobile manufacturing corporation recommend a new plant on a part-time basis in order to raise the number of production. The manager draws his conclusion based on a vague statistic which may even not rest on a survey, and a successful example that a airplane manufacturer achieved using the part-time strategy. Reasonable as this suggestion seems, I suggest the company should do more examinations before carry out the plan.
The plan is brought out by the manager for the sake of satisfying the demand for the company's automobiles. However, we are not offer any specific statistic that the demand would increase. The only figure the manager provides is based on a ambiguous indication by the marketing projections. Is it a figure based on a formal survey? Is the number of the respondents large enough to make a conclusion about the demand of the whole market? Are the respondents picked up randomly? Moreover, even if the figure is from a reliable survey, the program remains a risk as there is no guarantee that they will buy an automobile eventually. Perhaps they just “wish” they could have a new one. As the plan will have a significant influence on the prosper of the company, the manager is supposed to first make the figure credible before asserting that  the demand is expected to increase.
Secondly, granted that the manager can convince us that the demand is going to increase probably, the company need to weigh and consider the feasibility to open a new plant. First, a new plan will definitely cost a large amount of expenditure. Can the company afford that amount of money? Consider, what if they had a serious deficit the year before and is not able to allocate funs on a new plant? It is quite possible that the company could not even offer the current employee their salaries. If this is the case, they may have to consider reducing the employees so as to cut down their expenditure, rather than build a new one to add to the financial burden of it. In addition, the proposal suggests a part-time basis which requires that workers from the existing site to rotate to work there. This is seemingly practicable at the first glance, the manager nevertheless fails to take into account whether the employees are willing to do the rotate job.
The third point has to do with the success of a major airplane manufacturer. The manager points out its success to try to claim that the company should follow the part-time rotating strategy. However, we need more information about first if the airplane manufacturer’s success owes to the strategy. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible other factors were responsible for it, such as a new technology by which they reduced their cost. Unless the manager can substantiate that the strategy contributed to the success, he cannot use it as convincing evidence.
To sum up, as the project to start a new plant will undoubtedly pose a great influence on the company, the manager should make a further examination on his evidence, rule out all other possible explanations so as to draw a sound conclusion.

灵感女孩UID: 2224424

TOPIC: ARGUMENT226 - The following appeared as part of a memo from the manager of an automobile manufacturing company.

"Because the demand for our automobiles is expected to increase dramatically, we need to open a new manufacturing plant as soon as possible in order to continue to thrive. Our marketing projections indicate that 80 million people will want to buy our automobiles, yet our existing plant can only produce 40 million automobiles. The new plant can be opened on a part-time basis, with workers from our existing site rotating responsibilities, until an operational staff can be trained. A major airplane manufacturer was extremely successful using this part-time rotating strategy when it opened its new plant five years ago."
WORDS: 784          TIME: 00:32:52 （思路提前想出来了，写得比较顺）         DATE: 8/3/2009

Based on the ungrounded assumption and dubious evidence, the manager of the automobile manufacturing company draws the conclusion that the company should open a new manufacturing plant as soon as possible to satisfy the dramatically increased demand of their product. To substantiate this conclusion, the manager sites the result of their marketing projections that 80 million people will want to purchase their products, yet the existing plant can only produce half of this number. He also took an airplane manufacturer as an example to illustrate that a part-time rotating strategy can be very successful. At first glance, the argument seems convincing, yet after careful scrutiny and thorough analysis, I find this argument suffering from several logical flaws.

First, the result of the marketing projections indicate that 80 million people will want to buy their automobiles, yet the manager did not provide any evidence to prove that these 80 million people will indeed buy their cars eventually. Their willingness to buy the car might be hampered by their economic constraints; in other words, they might not even afford the cars. It is also possible that when other manufacturers use successful advertisement strategy to attract these customers, they could easily switch to other cars.

Next, even if these people will in fact buy these automobiles, they may not demand it at the same time. The manager did not tell us how fast the existing plant can produce 40 million cars. It could be one month or two, yet some of the 80 million people plan to purchase this kind of car in half a year or a year. So the existing plant may actually satisfy the demand of the 80 million customers, or even produce more to satisfy the market in other cities or abroad. Without any confirmation of how quickly the cars can be produced, or in how long a time frame the 80 million people demand these cars, the manager cannot hastily aver that an additional plant is necessary.

To propose a strategy of how to manage the new plant, the manager cites an example of an airplane manufacturer that they were successful using a part-time rotating system when it opened its new plant. The manager fails to prove there is indeed a correlation between the rotating system and the success of the new airplane plant. The new airplane plant could have also used other strategies to achieve its success. Maybe the company hired experts to develop more effective and cheaper ways to produce airplanes, or maybe the raised the salary for its workers so that the workers are more motivated and therefore increased the productivity. Without ruling out these possibilities, the manager cannot assume it is indeed the part-time rotating system that helped the new airplane plant to succeed.

Even assuming the part-time rotating strategy is indispensible and crucial to the success of the air plane plant five years ago, the manager assumed that this trend will continue. It can be possible that during these five years, new management strategies are developed and more effective than the part-time rotating system.Even assuming that this trend will continue, the manager made a false analogy between the two industries of airplane manufacturing and automobile manufacturing. The part-time strategy works well in the airplane industry does not mean it will be of great use in the automobile industry. Maybe it takes shorter to train an operational staff in the airplane plant because the workers are more skilled, but a longer time to train an operational staff for the automobile plant because the workers are less familiar with the responsibilities.

Even if the situations in the two different industries are similar, the manager fails to consider the cost of establishing a new plant. Building a new plant requires a lot of money and input. The manager did not tell us whether the company is able to afford the cost and even make profit out of it. It can also take years to build it and maybe by then, the demand for this kind of automobile has dropped. Therefore, the manager cannot draw the conclusion that opening a new plant is a good idea.

To sum up, the manager fails to substantiate his claim that opening a new plant as soon as possible is an effective and pragmatic way to keep the company thriving. To make the proposal more convincing, the manager should provide more information regarding the details of how many people exactly will buy their automobile. Additionally, he should give more concrete reasons why the automobile manufacturer can imitate the example of an airplane compartment. If the manager included the given factors discussed above, it could be a more insightful and logically acceptable suggestion.

shevavaUID: 2574709

TOPIC: ARGUMENT226 - The following appeared as part of a memo from the manager of an automobile manufacturing company.

"Because the demand for our automobiles is expected to increase dramatically, we need to open a new manufacturing plant as soon as possible in order to continue to thrive. Our marketing projections indicate that 80 million people will want to buy our automobiles, yet our existing plant can only produce 40 million automobiles. The new plant can be opened on a part-time basis, with workers from our existing site rotating responsibilities, until an operational staff can be trained. A major airplane manufacturer was extremely successful using this part-time rotating strategy when it opened its new plant five years ago."
WORDS: 455          TIME: 00:49:40          DATE: 2009-8-3 16:12:29

The argument well presented, but not thoroughly reasoned. Considering the great demand for the automobiles and lower productivity at hand, and seeing the success of a major airplane using part-time rotating strategy when it opened its new plant five years ago, the manager of an automobile manufacturing company concludes that a new manufacturing plant need to be opened as soon as possible in order to continue to thrive. And also, he suggests that the new plant can be opened on a part-time basis. However, the reasons for the opening of the new plant seem not enough to level the support, and some of them seem illogical.

At the beginning, the demand of our automobiles is expected to increase dramatically, but there is no evidence or information to reflecting whether there will be a continuous high demand.  If the demand for our automobiles in the future decreases swiftly for some reasons, such as competition with other companies, finance crisis, and so on, the cost of building the new plant may not be withdrawn. At that time, it would be a great failure. What's more, without any detailed information about the actual procedure and method used in the marketing objections, the reliability of the projections is open to doubt. Besides, among the 80 million people who will want to buy our automobiles, how many of them can afford the automobile, or how many of them have the willingness to buy? These are all weighing very much on the decision of the opening of the new manufacturing plant.

Furthermore, the manager fails to consider the feasibility of the part-time work, or let us say, whether the workers are willing to accept the rotating responsibilities. It is possible that due to the more work and less free time, some workers will leave the company and take other jobs. If so , the profit gained by the company may not meet the loss.

Last but not least, even assuming that the part-time strategy runs smoothly, the manager made a false analogy between the two companies. They may be under different conditions. Perhaps the extreme success result from perfect management or the rising needs of the market, or satisfying market strategy.
Also in the reference to the different producing process between automobile and airplane, the arguer cannot provide more information to verify that the part-time  rotating strategy are effective in the field of automobile manufacturing.

Overall, the manager cannot give enough evidences and information for the exact prospect of the market of his automobile, and the comparison made between the automobile manufacturing and the airplane manufacturing company lacks definite facts and figures.  Therefore, if the factors discussed above had been intended, the argument would have been more convincing and logically acceptable.

shallwetalk1990UID: 2507431

题目：ARGUMENT226 - The following appeared as part of a memo from the manager of an automobile manufacturing company.

"Because the demand for our automobiles is expected to increase dramatically, we need to open a new manufacturing plant as soon as possible in order to continue to thrive. Our marketing projections indicate that 80 million people will want to buy our automobiles, yet our existing plant can only produce 40 million automobiles. The new plant can be opened on a part-time basis, with workers from our existing site rotating responsibilities, until an operational staff can be trained. A major airplane manufacturer was extremely successful using this part-time rotating strategy when it opened its new plant five years ago."
字数：459          用时：2:05:32          日期：2009-8-3

It stands reason that points in this argument should be logical, cause of its clear statement. Grounding this automobile manufacturing company's marketing projections and a successful example of a airplane manufacturer, this company make a decision that new plant should be build with necessary and let existing worker shift work for both new and old plant until new staff have been trained. However, when we have a deep thought, we will find some logical confusion.

Firstly, considering the reliability of these marketing projections in this argument, these researchers in this company should calculate uncertain factors of it. In these projections, they indicate that 80 million people tend to buy automobiles of this company. Without the process of these projections, the conclusion seems questionable. This 80 million people may be mislead to agree that they will have  intend to buy this brand's automobile; it is extremely possible that they have own a car and they won't buy automobile to waste money. Even if the process of the projections is creditable, this 80 million people only want to buy their automobiles. As everybody knows, the economic crisis makes so many people lose their job; no money could pay for their lives, needless to say the automobiles.

Secondly, in spite of this automobile's requirement and citizen's purchase power, the necessity of new plant's establishment is unreasonable. The manager made this decision only based on the marketing projections; however, no information can support the need. The demand of the automobile now is still unknown, but existing plant can produce 40 million automobiles, which may satisfy the need of purchaser. Another significant point that the manager neglects is the cost. From the perspective of economics, a mass of cost on new factory's building and new staff's training, as well as the unknown profits of if, make the thrift of this company unpredictable.

Finally, the success of a major airplane manufacturer means nothing. the manager of this automobile manufacturing company draw an analogy between the industry of automobile and the industry of airplane incorrectly. So much dissimilar places appear even in two companies much more two industries. Do they train new workers as the same way? Does their staff hold the same workload? Are their workings hours are the same? All of this question can't be answered without the compassion of these two companies.

Overall, the manager did apply himself/herself into his/her work, while at the same time he/she was making lots of logical mistakes. He/she should make more work on the people's purchase power and social environment, so that he can make the conclusion more reasonable. Also he should make his analogy more preciseness by comparing these two companies completely. At last, his conclusion shouldn't be accepted; however, his work should be accepted.

yesrushUID: 2443769

TOPIC: ARGUMENT226 - The following appeared as part of a memo from the manager of an automobile manufacturing company.

"Because the demand for our automobiles is expected to increase dramatically, we need to open a new manufacturing plant as soon as possible in order to continue to thrive. Our marketing projections indicate that 80 million people will want to buy our automobiles, yet our existing plant can only produce 40 million automobiles. The new plant can be opened on a part-time basis, with workers from our existing site rotating responsibilities, until an operational staff can be trained. A major airplane manufacturer was extremely successful using this part-time rotating strategy when it opened its new plant five years ago."
WORDS: 449
TIME: 0:30:00
DATE: 2009-8-3

By referring to the projections about 80 million people's willing to buy their automobiles and making the comparison of a major airplane manufacturer, which use the part-time rotating strategy and therefore be successful, the author draw the conclusion that they should use the part-time basis on the new automobile plant. The information above is an obvious conclusion at a first glance, however, the author fails to consider other factors to evaluate the situation.

To begin with, the author unfairly equators those who will want to buy their automobiles in the marketing projections to those who will really buy their automobiles in future. It is true that people with strong wish to buy their automobiles nowadays will actually buy them in future. However, does these people have enough money to buy automobiles? Would those who has sufficient money to buy the automobiles refuse to buy only because they believe the cost about maintenance and fuel is too high? Is it possible that other manufacturing company will produce similar automobile with higher quality and lower price?

What's more, the author unjustly assumes that the part-time policy in the airplane manufacturer will also fits the automobile manufacturer. The author ignores the difference about production and stuff between the airplane industry and the automobile industry. Perhaps new employees do not like working in the automobile manufacturer due to the low pay or long-time working. Even if there are many persons willing to join in the automobile industry, the author overlooks the possibility that the training used to train the rookie to be a professional staff in automobile manufacture is so difficult that few of them can really understand the technology and business about making automobile. In the face of such limited evidence, I can not accept the author's sweeping generalization that the part-time scenario which is effective in the airplane manufacture will also bring success to automobile manufacture.

In addition, even though the part-time scenario will ensure the production of the automobile manufacture, the company will not necessarily earn a substantial profit by building the new automobile manufacturer. It is possible that building such a new automobile manufacturer takes much human resource and much money. Even if these costs they can afford, the time when they are building the automobile manufacture is so long that the customs have changed their attitude to their product. If so, then the costs and time of building automobile manufacturer might prevent the company from earning a profit.

In sum, the argument suffers several fallacies. To bolster the argument, the author must provide the information about the customs, to better access the argument, the author should present the evidence that the part-time policy is also successful in automobile manufacture.

blade134UID: 2328542

In this argument, based on market projections, the author suggests the company to build a new plant which can produce more automobiles to meet the expected dramatic increase needs of market. He also advices company to adopt a part-time rotate strategy to solve the worker's experience problem as an airplane had done successfully five year ago. However, it is not unconvincing since his deduction and the evidence he offers have some flaws.

The key evidence in this argument is the market projection. For many interviewers who involved in, they will probably change their mind for some other reasons. For example, if economy was in recession, many people would have limited their outcome, such as buy automobile or other estate to save money. Therefore the result that 80 million people will want to buy our mobiles is just an illusion. In addition, since members in a family who want to buy a car together, such as someone and his wife, happened to be involved in the projection in the same time, the real number excludes such repeating account is not qualified because it is not well detailed.

Even if the projection's result is credible, whether this new factory can solve the manufacture shortage is still suspicious. We must explicitly know the number of the automobiles this factory can produce otherwise we can not sure we can fill the shortage just by building a new factory. Maybe improving the technology in our existing plant can produce more cars and save more costs than building a new plant. Besides, we do not know the number of our existing factory and the number of their manufacture ability, without which we can not judge the manufacture shortage precisely.

Assume these two above are not a problem; we still need to pay attention to the cost of a new factory. As what author said, the best way we can do before an operational staff was trained is to
open a part-time rotation. However, perhaps the rotation will cost the company a lot since we must pay for addition apartment and other facilities in the worker's daily life. Thus we must list the detail cost before making the decision.

In addition, the success case of airplane factory is not proper for our company. They can use their own flight to pick up their employees from one city to another quickly and freely, but we need pay additional money if we rotate our employees by air.

In sum, without more investigation and more details, the author's suggestion is unconvincing.

shallwetalk1990UID: 2507431

TOPIC: ARGUMENT226 - The following appeared as part of a memo from the manager of an automobile manufacturing company.

"Because the demand for our automobiles is expected to increase dramatically, we need to open a new manufacturing plant as soon as possible in order to continue to thrive. Our marketing projections indicate that 80 million people will want to buy our automobiles, yet our existing plant can only produce 40 million automobiles. The new plant can be opened on a part-time basis, with workers from our existing site rotating responsibilities, until an operational staff can be trained. A major airplane manufacturer was extremely successful using this part-time rotating strategy when it opened its new plant five years ago."
WORDS: 455          TIME: 00:49:40          DATE: 2009-8-3 16:12:29

The argument well presented, but not thoroughly reasoned. Considering the great demand for the automobiles and lower productivity at hand, and seeing the success of a major airplane using part-time rotating strategy when it opened its new plant five years ago, the manager of an automobile manufacturing company concludes that a new manufacturing plant need to be opened as soon as possible in order to continue to thrive. And also, he suggests that the new plant can be opened on a part-time basis. However, the reasons for the opening of the new plant seem not enough to level the support, and some of them seem illogical.（呃 不知道昨天是我改的吗？ 昨天就有一个人也是像你一样 well-presented well-reasoned 这个是第一篇范文的经典之作 估计ETS是个老师都能倒背如流了 还是不要用了 看第一句就让人崩溃的感觉 不好意思啊~）

At the beginning, the demand of our automobiles is expected to increase dramatically, but there is no evidence or information to reflecting whether there will be a continuous high demand.  If the demand for our automobiles in the future decreases swiftly for some reasons, such as competition with other companies, finance crisis, and so on, the cost of building the new plant may not be withdrawn. At that time, it would be a great failure. What's more, without any detailed information about the actual procedure and method used in the marketing objections, the reliability of the projections is open to doubt. （Besides, among the 80 million people who will want to buy our automobiles, how many of them can afford the automobile, or how many of them have the willingness to buy? These are all weighing very much on the decision of the opening of the new manufacturing plant.）一直在等着你说这个80million的问题 原因和结果弄混了 arguz中是先说的perjection 所以那些人可不可能买是要建立在作者提出的这个错误假设之上的 所以应该把prejection在前面就提出来 然后把那些人不可能买的原因放后面

Furthermore, the manager fails to consider the feasibility of the part-time work, or let us say, whether the workers are willing to accept the rotating responsibilities. It is possible that due to the more work and less free time, some workers will leave the company and take other jobs. If so , the profit gained by the company may not meet the loss. 工人可能离开 以及利润的原因 说的太少了 可以增加一些的

Last but not least, even assuming that the part-time strategy runs smoothly, the manager made a false analogy between the two companies. They may be under different conditions. Perhaps the extreme success result from perfect management or the rising needs of the market, or satisfying market strategy.
Also in the reference to the different producing process between automobile and airplane, the arguer cannot provide more information to verify that the part-time  rotating strategy are effective in the field of automobile manufacturing. 这段的论述很充分 比前两段有血肉感

Overall, the manager cannot give enough evidences and information for the exact prospect of the market of his automobile, and the comparison made between the automobile manufacturing and the airplane manufacturing company lacks definite facts and figures.  Therefore, if the factors discussed above had been intended, the argument would have been more convincing and logically acceptable.

语言除了第一段非常范文化 其他方面都还可以
逻辑方面有点乱 条理可以更清晰些
不过我好像改过一次你的 比以往已经好很多了 加油！
4# shevava