GRE官方欽定北美GRE滿(mǎn)分范文
The following appeared as part of an article in a daily newspaper:
"Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
北美GRE范文首段
This argument states that it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer because by making the workplace safer then lower wages could be paid to employees. This conclusion is based on the premise that as the list of physical injury increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Howeveer, there are several assumptions that may not necessarily apply to this argument. For example, the costs associated with making the workplace safe must outweigh the increased payroll expenses due to hazardous conditions. Also, one must look at the plausability of improving the work environment. And finally, because most companies agree that as the risk of injury increases so will wages doesn\'t necessarily mean that the all companies which have hazardous work environments agree.
北美GRE作文范文中間段1
The first issue to be addressed is whether increased labor costs justify large capital expenditures to improve the work environment. Clearly one could argue that if making the workplace safe would cost an exorbitant amount of money in comparison to leaving the workplace as is and paying slightly increased wages than it would not make sense to improve the work environment. For example, if making the workplace safe would cost $100 million versus additional payroll expenses of only $5,000 per year, it would make financial sense to simply pay the increased wages. No business or business owner with any sense would pay all that extra money just to save a couple dollars and improve employee health and relations. To consider this, a cost benefit analysis must be made. I also feel that although a cost benefit analysis should be the determining factor with regard to these decisions making financial sense, it may not be the determining factor with regard to making social, moral and ethical sense.
北美GRE范文中間段2
This argument also relies on the idea that companies solely use financial sense in analysing improving the work environment. This is not the case. Companies look at other considerations such as the negative social ramifications of high on-job injuries. For example, Toyota spends large amounts of money improving its environment because while its goal is to be profitable, it also prides itself on high employee morale and an almost perfectly safe work environment. However, Toyota finds that it can do both, as by improving employee health and employee relations they are guaranteed a more motivated staff, and hence a more efficient staff; this guarantees more money for the business as well as more safety for the employees.
北美GRE寫(xiě)作范文中間段3
Finally one must understand that not all work environments can be made safer. For example, in the case of coal mining, a company only has limited ways of making the work environment safe. While companies may be able to ensure some safety precautions, they may not be able to provide all the safety measures necessary. In other words, a mining company has limited ability to control the air quality within a coal mine and therefore it cannot control the risk of employees getting blacklung. In other words, regardless of the intent of the company, some jobs are simply dangerous in nature.
北美GRE范文末端
In conclusion, while at first it may seem to make financial sense to improve the safety of the work environment sometimes it truly does not make financial sense. Furthermore, financial sense may not be the only issue a company faces. Other types of analyses must be made such as the social ramifications of an unsafe work environment and the overall ability of a company to improve that environment (i.e。， coal mine)。 Before any decision is made, all this things must be considered, not simply the reduction of payroll expenses.
GRE這篇官方欽定滿(mǎn)分的范文，其最明顯的優(yōu)點(diǎn)在于：
1. 字?jǐn)?shù)高達(dá)599words, GRE充分體現(xiàn)了字?jǐn)?shù)為王的判分傾向。
2. 標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的五段制，首段、GRE末端，中間三段，看上去很美。
3. 沒(méi)有陳詞濫調(diào)、GRE滿(mǎn)篇廢話(huà)的模板式語(yǔ)言。
只有以上三點(diǎn)離滿(mǎn)分還是很遠(yuǎn)的，GRE之所以SIX，我看更重要的在于，每段各盡其責(zé)，既獨(dú)立又統(tǒng)一，形成了完整的ARGUMENT，specifically:
1. 首段再現(xiàn)了原TOPIC的推理過(guò)程，GRE并指出其assumptions多有不適;尤其令閱卷人高興的是：首段在最后簡(jiǎn)化羅列了推理中的三個(gè)問(wèn)題。要知道美國(guó)人就喜歡的作文---總分式，在首段就把三個(gè)ideas羅列出來(lái)，然后在中間三段分別展開(kāi)，先總后分，一目了然。
2. 中一的TS -- “The first issue to be addressed is whether increased labor costs justify large capital expenditures to improve the work environment.”可謂是一針見(jiàn)血，一劍封喉。對(duì)于這樣嚴(yán)重的推理漏洞，如果不首先指出，其argument必然軟弱乏力。此所謂
Topic中的 “必削點(diǎn)”，不可不察。
3. 中二的TS – “This argument also relies on the idea that companies solely use financial sense in analysing improving the work environment.”這可謂是劍走偏鋒，獨(dú)辟蹊徑，出人所料。文章竟然批評(píng)了Topic以錢(qián)為本經(jīng)營(yíng)理念，提出了要以人為本，這樣寫(xiě)是有一定風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，畢竟這不是Issue。
那本文是如何化險(xiǎn)為夷的呢?且看本段最后一句“this guarantees more money for the business as well as more safety for the employees.”我不由得長(zhǎng)舒一口，人家再次回歸了，又回到了Topic中以“Money”為本的推理。
4. 中三的TS – “Finally one must understand that not all work environments can be made safer.”這充分體現(xiàn)了作者不只是坐而論道的arguer，而是關(guān)心其可行性的現(xiàn)實(shí)主義者，考慮到方案本身的可行性和局限性。
5. 末端不但對(duì)首段提出的論點(diǎn)做出了重復(fù)性的總結(jié)，GRE而且又不厭其煩地把中間三段的ideas一一羅列。如此“啰嗦”估計(jì)令某些同學(xué)略有不齒，但這恰恰是美國(guó)人的最?lèi)?ài)，cultural shock了吧?
