GRE写作官方题库高频ARGUMENT题目满分范文分享：reduce on-the-job accidents

　　The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Quiot Manufacturing:

　　“During the past year, Quiot Manufacturing had 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than at the nearby Panoply Industries plant, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. Experts say that significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents are fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers. Therefore, to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents at Quiot and thereby increase productivity, we should shorten each of our three work shifts by one hour so that employees will get adequate amounts of sleep.”

　　Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

　　【满分范文赏析】

　　This editorial recommends that Quiot Manufacturing reduce its work shifts by one hour each in order to reduce its on-the-job accident rate and thereby increase productivity. To support this recommendation the author points out that last year the number of accidents at Quiot was 30% greater than at Industries plant, where work shifts are one hour shorter. The author also cites expert reports which indicate fatigue and sleep deprivation are major causes of accidents. There are several reasons why this argument for a one-hour reduction in work time per shift is not convincing.

　　【本段结构】

　　本文采用了标准的Argument开头段结构，即C—A—F的开头结构。本段首先概括原文的Conclusion，之后简要提及原文为支持其结论所引用的一系列Assumption及细节，最后给出开头段到正文段的过渡句，指出原文的Flaw，即这些Assumption无法让原文逻辑上没有问题。

　　【本段功能】

　　作为Argument开头段，本段具体功能就在于发起攻击并概括原文的结论，即为了减少事故，Quiot工厂应当减少工人的上班时间。本段接下来提到了原文中为支持之前的Conclusion所提供的证据，即Quiot工厂在比另外一家工厂在工作时间多的情况下事故率要高，同时有专家报告称，工人的睡眠质量能够影响事故发生率。文章提及这些信息，为是在正文段中对这些Assumption即将进行的具体攻击做铺垫。

　　First and foremost, the author provides absolutely no evidence that overall worker productivity is attributable in part to the number of on-the-job accidents. While common sense tells us such a relationship exists, the author must provide some evidence of this cause-and-effect relationship before I can accept the author's final conclusion that the proposed course of action would in fact increase productivity.

　　【本段结构】

　　本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即先是提及原文的第一个逻辑错误，之后分析该逻辑错误的原因，接下来，进一步分析这样的错误为什么让原文的Conclusion不成立。

　　【本段功能】

　　作为正文第一段，本段攻击原文所犯的第一个重要逻辑错误——类比类错误。原文当中假设，工人的生产效率和事故发生率存在着关系。但是这样的关系是否存在只是凭空假设。因此原文的结论，即减少工作事故能够促进工作效率的提高是不成立的。

　　Thirdly, assuming that Quiot’s workers are fatigued or sleep-deprived, in order to accept the author's solution to this problem we must assume that Quiot’s workers would use the additional hour of free time to sleep or rest. However, the author provides no evidence that they would use the time in this manner. It is entirely possible that Quiot’s workers would use that extra hour to engage in some other activity—binge drinking, for example, which could increase the overall rate of accidents on the job. Without ruling out this possibility the author cannot convincingly conclude that his proposal will have the desired effects.

　　【本段结构】

　　本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即先是提及原文的第三个逻辑错误，之后分析该逻辑错误的原因，接下来，进一步分析这样的错误为什么让原文的Conclusion不成立。

　　【本段功能】

　　作为正文第三段，本段攻击原文所犯的第三个重要逻辑错误——因果类错误。原文假设如果工作时间减少了，工人们一定能够有更好的睡眠。但是，这种因果关系并不一定成立，因为人们也许会利用额外的休息时间来做其它事情。所以，原文的这个观点是不能让人确信的。

　　Finally, a series of problems with the argument arise from the scant statistical information on which it relies. In comparing the number of accidents at Quiot and Panoply, the author fails to consider that the per-capita accident rate. Second, perhaps accident rates at the two companies last year were aberrations. Or perhaps Panoply is not representative of industrial companies in generally and that other companies with shorter work shifts have even higher accident rates. In short, since the argument relies on very limited statistical information, an audience should not take a recommendation based on it.

　　【本段结构】

　　本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即先是提及原文的第四个逻辑错误，之后分析该逻辑错误的原因，接下来，进一步分析这样的错误为什么让原文的Conclusion不成立。

　　【本段功能】

　　作为正文第四段，本段攻击原文所犯的第四个重要逻辑错误——样本类错误。原文假设Panoply工厂的情况是有代表性的，但事实上可能并非如此，因为单一个体的案例并不一定能适用于其它个体。所以原文的这个假设是不合理的。