GRE作文范文 Argument-21

The following appeared in the annual report from the president of the National Brush Company.

嘉文博譯Sample Essay

"In order to save money, we at the National Brush Company have decided to pay our employees for each brush they produce instead of for the time they spend producing brushes. We believe that this policy will lead to the production of more and better brushes, will allow us to reduce our staff size, and will enable the company factories to operate for fewer hours---resulting in savings on electricity and security costs. These changes will ensure that the best workers keep their jobs and that the company will earn a profit in the coming year."

In this argument, the president of the National Brush Company states that the company has decided to pay employees for each brush that they produce rather than for the time that they spend producing the brushes. The president states that this will lead to the production of more and better brushes, allowing the company to reduce its staff size and save money on electricity and security costs by operating the factories for fewer hours. The president also states that the changes will allow the company to keep the best workers and ensure a profit for the company in the coming year. In theory, the president's idea sounds good, but a closer examination reveals that his or her conclusions are based on nothing more than guesswork, not hard facts.

There is not really any argument here; the president merely states conclusions with no basis in fact. First of all, the president states that by paying employees by the brush produced, rather than for the time spent at work, the company will get better brushes in greater quantity. On the contrary, it is likely that paying employees by the brush will lead to lower quality rather than better quality brushes. The incentive will be for employees to produce as many brushes as they possibly can, thus they will try to work as fast as they can with little regard for quality. Although there will likely be an increase in the quantity of the brushes produced, it is likely that they will be of lower quality as the employees race to produce as many as possible. Without some type of quality control mechanism, the president's conclusion that there will be more, higher quality brushes is likely based on wishful thinking rather than fact.

Secondly, the president refers to saving money by reducing staff size and operating the factories for fewer hours. This does not follow any type of logical reasoning, certainly none that is present in the president's annual report. There is no evidence presented on which to base the assumption that there can be a reduction in staff. Additionally, employees will expect to work the same number of hours so that they may produce as many brushes as possible to maximize their incomes. It does not follow that there will be savings from staff reductions or from operating the factories fewer hours. Indeed, it is likely that the employees will be motivated to work longer hours to produce even more brushes, thus leading to increased rather than decreased factory hours. Furthermore, unless the company establishes a production ceiling for the number of brushes produced, there will likely be no savings in electricity or security costs as the factories will continue to stay open at least the same, if not more, hours than before the change.

Finally, the president states that the changes in policy will ensure that the "best" workers keep their jobs, and that the company will earn a profit in the coming year. Once again, these are baseless conclusions. Which workers will the company consider to be the best: those that produce the most brushes or those that produce the highest quality brushes? It would be dangerous to conclude that the best workers are those that produce the highest number of brushes, as a purely numerical merit system does not take quality into consideration. Such a system might actually lead to the dismissal of the best workers while keeping those whose only quality is that of speed, not of craftsmanship. Furthermore, there is no guarantee of profits for the company in the coming year with this new policy. Should the "pay by the brush" policy encourage employees to speed up production while sacrificing quality, it is likely that the company would lose sales and therefore profits. There is no evidence presented in the argument to back up the conclusion that the best workers will stay and profitability will be ensured.

To summarize, there is no evidence presented by the president that the plan will lead to the specified conclusions. Without further factual evidence that the plan will perform as advertised, the president appears to be engaging in wishful thinking rather than rational planning.

(699 words)

參考譯文

下文摘自國家制刷公司總裁的年度報告。

為了省錢，我們國家制刷公司決定按每位雇員制刷數(shù)量計付工資，而不是按他們制刷所花的時間付酬。我們相信，這一政策將致使生產(chǎn)更多、更好的刷子，將使我們縮減工作人員，并將使公司的工廠工作時間縮減，其結(jié)果是節(jié)省用電和安全費用。這些變化，將會保證那些最優(yōu)秀的工人繼續(xù)有工作，公司在來年將獲得利潤

在這一論證中，國家制刷公司的總裁聲稱，公司決定按每位雇員制刷數(shù)量計付工資，而不是按他們制刷所花的時間付酬?？偛寐暦Q，這將致使生產(chǎn)更多更好的刷子，因工廠工作時間減少而裁減工作人員，節(jié)省電力和安全開支。總裁還說，這些變化將使公司擁有最優(yōu)秀的工人并保證公司在來年贏利。理論上，總裁的說法聽起來很好。但仔細(xì)審視，我們會發(fā)現(xiàn)，他/她的結(jié)論完全基于猜測，而非令人信服的事實。

其實，這位總裁根本沒有進行論證。他/她僅僅提出了沒有事實根據(jù)的結(jié)論而已。首先，總裁聲稱，以制刷數(shù)量計付雇員工資而不是按工作時間付酬，公司將生產(chǎn)更多更好的刷子。相反，很可能計件付酬這一做法將導(dǎo)致低質(zhì)量的而非高質(zhì)量的刷子。這一刺激方式將促使雇員努力生產(chǎn)更多的刷子，因而他們會盡快地工作而忽視質(zhì)量。雖然很可能在制刷數(shù)量上會有增加，但是由于雇員競相制造更多的刷子，很可能會致使質(zhì)量降低。在沒有質(zhì)量控制機制的情況下，總裁所謂將生產(chǎn)更多更好的刷子這一結(jié)論很可能是基于良好的愿望，而不是事實。

第二，總裁談到減少工作人員和減少工廠工作時間可以省錢。這一點也不符合任何形式的邏輯推理，更與總裁年度報告內(nèi)容無關(guān)。沒有證據(jù)證明有必要裁減工作人員。此外，雇員會希望工作同樣的時間，以便盡可能多地制造刷子，最大限度地增加收入。所以裁減工作人員和縮短工廠工作時間并不會省錢。的確，很可能雇員將被迫工作更長的時間來生產(chǎn)更多的刷子，其結(jié)果是增加而不是減少工廠工作時間。進而言之，除非公司確定一個制刷數(shù)量的最高限度，否則將不會在電力上有任何節(jié)約，也不會在安全費用上有任何節(jié)約，因為工廠將比變革前工作更長的時間，至少也是與變革前同樣的時間。

最后，總裁聲稱，政策的變革將會確保"最優(yōu)秀"的工人繼續(xù)擁有他們的工作，而且公司在來年將獲利。又一次，這些都是毫無根據(jù)的結(jié)論。什么樣的工人是公司認(rèn)為最優(yōu)秀的呢?生產(chǎn)最多刷子的工人呢，還是生產(chǎn)質(zhì)量最好的刷子的工人呢?說最優(yōu)秀的工人是那些制刷數(shù)量最多的，這將是非常危險的，因為純粹的數(shù)字評估體制沒有把質(zhì)量考慮進去。這樣的體制實際上會導(dǎo)致最優(yōu)秀的工人遭淘汰而保留那些以速度為要素而不是以工藝為要素的工人。再者，實施這一新政策并不能保證公司在來年獲利。如果"計件工資制"的政策鼓勵雇員提高生產(chǎn)速度但犧牲質(zhì)量，那么很可能公司將蒙受銷售損失從而也蒙受利潤損失。論證過程中并沒有提供證據(jù)來支持最優(yōu)秀的工人將被留在公司以及利潤將獲得保證這一結(jié)論。

總之，總裁并沒有提供證據(jù)來證明這一計劃將產(chǎn)生他/她所標(biāo)榜的那些結(jié)果。因為沒有進一步的證據(jù)來證明計劃將會按所宣傳的那樣得到實施，所以總裁顯得在做一廂情愿的揣測，而不是在進行理性的推論。