GRE寫作官方題庫高頻ARGUMENT題目滿分范文分享：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.

　　【滿分范文賞析】

　　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.

　　【本段結構】

　　本文采用了標準的Argument開頭段結構，即C—A—F的開頭結構。本段首先概括原文的Conclusion，之后簡要提及原文為支持其結論所引用的一系列Assumption及細節(jié)，最后給出開頭段到正文段的過渡句，指出原文的Flaw，即這些Assumption無法讓原文邏輯上沒有問題。

　　【本段功能】

　　作為Argument開頭段，本段具體功能就在于發(fā)起攻擊并概括原文的結論，即為了減少事故，Quiot工廠應當減少工人的上班時間。本段接下來提到了原文中為支持之前的Conclusion所提供的證據，即Quiot工廠在比另外一家工廠在工作時間多的情況下事故率要高，同時有專家報告稱，工人的睡眠質量能夠影響事故發(fā)生率。文章提及這些信息，為是在正文段中對這些Assumption即將進行的具體攻擊做鋪墊。

　　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.

　　【本段結構】

　　本段采用了標準的Argument正文段結構，即先是提及原文的第一個邏輯錯誤，之后分析該邏輯錯誤的原因，接下來，進一步分析這樣的錯誤為什么讓原文的Conclusion不成立。

　　【本段功能】

　　作為正文第一段，本段攻擊原文所犯的第一個重要邏輯錯誤——類比類錯誤。原文當中假設，工人的生產效率和事故發(fā)生率存在著關系。但是這樣的關系是否存在只是憑空假設。因此原文的結論，即減少工作事故能夠促進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.

　　【本段結構】

　　本段采用了標準的Argument正文段結構，即先是提及原文的第三個邏輯錯誤，之后分析該邏輯錯誤的原因，接下來，進一步分析這樣的錯誤為什么讓原文的Conclusion不成立。

　　【本段功能】

　　作為正文第三段，本段攻擊原文所犯的第三個重要邏輯錯誤——因果類錯誤。原文假設如果工作時間減少了，工人們一定能夠有更好的睡眠。但是，這種因果關系并不一定成立，因為人們也許會利用額外的休息時間來做其它事情。所以，原文的這個觀點是不能讓人確信的。

　　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.

　　【本段結構】

　　本段采用了標準的Argument正文段結構，即先是提及原文的第四個邏輯錯誤，之后分析該邏輯錯誤的原因，接下來，進一步分析這樣的錯誤為什么讓原文的Conclusion不成立。

　　【本段功能】

　　作為正文第四段，本段攻擊原文所犯的第四個重要邏輯錯誤——樣本類錯誤。原文假設Panoply工廠的情況是有代表性的，但事實上可能并非如此，因為單一個體的案例并不一定能適用于其它個體。所以原文的這個假設是不合理的。