GRE作文范文 Argument-27

The following is a recommendation from the director of personnel to the president of Profession Printing Company.

"In a recent telephone survey of automobile factory workers,older employees were less likely to report that having a supervisor increases their productivity. Among workers aged 18 to 29,27 percent said that they are more aged 30 or over,and only 8 percent for those aged 50 or over. Cleaarly,if our printing company hires mainly older employees, we will increase productivity and save money because of the reduced need for supervisors."

嘉文博译Sample Essay

With this argument, the director of personnel is trying to convince the president of the Profession Printing Company that older employees are lesslikely to report that having a supervisor present increases their productivity.The personnel director then conclueds that the printing company should therefore hire mainly older employees to incresse productivity and save money because money because of the reduced need for supervisors.This argument is based on a false analogy and suffers from several other critical flaws.

Firstly,there is no evidence presented that the telephone survey of automobile factory workers is reliable.It id not clear how the survey was performed, the number and job titles of those who were surveyed,or what is the margin of error.Furthermore, the director of personnel only states"older employees were less likely to report that having a supervisor present increases their productivity" This is not the same as saying that older employees are in fact more productive without a supervisor or even that they are equally productive with or a supervisor present.In addition, the survey shows that only 8 percent of wokers aged 50 or over said that they are more productive in the present of a supervisor, but it does not state what the other 92 percent of these worker does not need supervision. The wording of the telephoto survey is a problem,leading to the director of personnel's blind assumptione that hiring mainly older employees will increase productivity and save money due to a reduced need for supervisord.There is no such evidence presented in the argument.

Furthermore, even assuming the validity of the study , the argument is based on the false analogy that automobile factory workers and printing company employees are the same.In an automobile factory, it is likely that the workers perform repetitiouswork and become quite skilled over time at their jobs lessening the need for immediate supervision.With a printing company ,however,nearly every job is different than the last,making it more difficult to become proficient.It is easy to see that older automobile factory workers would become expert at assembly line work,for example, and therefore believe that they need no supervision to do their work.With a printing company,perhaps older workers would not be suited to this type of work and automobile manufacturing are clealy two very different types of requiring distinct types of work skills. It does not follow that because older automobile workers feel they don't need supervision that the same theory would apply to printing company employees. The director of personnel merely assumes that the workers would be the same in both industries without providing any proof that this is true.

In summary, the director of personnel's argument fails to convince because it is based on a false analogy as well as problematic reasoning .He or she directly compares automobile factory workers to potential employees of a printing company,which require very different job skills.Furthermore, the more, the study itself may have been misinterpreted,as it merely states that only 8 percent of workers aged 50 or over are more productive in the presence of their immediate supervisor.It expressly does not say what other 92 percent of that group of workers reported.There is no evdence presented by the director of personnel that hiring mainly older employees will increase productivity and save money due to a reduced need for supervisors, and his or her argument should be rejected.

(613 words)

参考译文

下文是人事部主任给职业印刷厂公司总裁的建议：

“在最近一次对汽车工厂工人的电话调查中，说有工头在场就能提高生产效率的年龄较大的员工相对较少。在年龄为18岁至29岁的工人当中，有27%的人说当着他们顶头上司的面工作起来会更有效率;相对而言，年龄为30岁及以上的工人，这样说的仅有12%;年龄为50岁及以上的人仅为8%。显然，倘若我们印刷公司主要雇佣年岁较大的雇员，那么我们将会提高生产效率，并因减少工头儿节省费用。”

凭借上述论证，人事部主任试图让职业印刷公司的 总裁相信，最近一次对汽车工厂工人的电话调查表明，年岁较大的雇员更有可能不会说有工头在场会提高生产效率，并且，因为不再需要那么多工头，从而得以节省费用。这一论证是建立在错误的类比之上的，而且存在几处严重的错误。

首先，没有证据说明对汽车工厂的电话调查时可信的。我们不清楚调查时如何进行的，那些被调查者的数目和工种是什么，以及误差的幅度是多少。再者，人事部主任只是说“年岁较大的雇员更有可能不会说有什么工头在场会提高生产效率”。这与下述说法并不完全相同，即实际上年纪较大的雇员在没有工头在场的情况下会有更高的工作效率;他甚至与下述说法也不相同，即无论是有没有工头在场，他们的生产效率同样高。另外，调查显示，50岁及以上的工人只有8%的人说工头在场会使生产效率更高，但没有说明另外92%的工人说了些什么。并不能假定他自然而然地意味着这一年龄段的工人不需要监督。电话调查的措辞也是一个问题，他使人事部主任盲目假定，主要雇佣岁数较大的雇员就能提高生产效率，而且因为减少对工头的需要而节省费用。论证中并没有提出这方面的证据。

其次，即使我们承认该项调查的有效性，它仍然是基于错误的类比——把汽车工厂的工人等同于印刷公司的雇员。在汽车工厂，很可能工人从事重复性的工作，一段时间以后就对工作熟练了，所以就减少时比较困难的。例如，我们很容易见到，汽车工厂岁数较大的工人成为装配线上的专家，从而相信他们不需要有人来监督他们的工作。但在印刷公司，岁数较大的工人或许不适合这类工作，所以生产效率会降低而不是提高。印刷工作和汽车制造显然是来那个种完全不同的工种，需要不同的技能。我们并不能说因为岁数较大的汽车工人觉得不需要监工，因而这套理论也同样适用于印刷公司的雇员。人事部主任只是臆断这两种行业的工人是同样的，因为它没有提供任何证据来证明这一点。

总之，人事部主任的论证没有说服力，因为它的类比基础是谬误的，推理也是成问题的。他简单地把汽车工厂的工人比作印刷公司的潜在雇员，但这两者实际上需要非常不同的工作技能。再者，调查本身被曲解了，因为它只是说50岁及以上的工人仅有8%的工人当着其顶头上司的面会有较高的生产效率。显然他并未说明其余92%的工人的反映为何。人事部主任也没有提供证据证明，主要雇佣岁数较大的雇员会提高生产效率，以及由于减少对监工的需要而能节省费用。因此，他的论证应予摒弃。