GRE作文范文 Argument-21

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

嘉文博译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)

参考译文

下文摘自国家制刷公司总裁的年度报告。

为了省钱，我们国家制刷公司决定按每位雇员制刷数量计付工资，而不是按他们制刷所花的时间付酬。我们相信，这一政策将致使生产更多、更好的刷子，将使我们缩减工作人员，并将使公司的工厂工作时间缩减，其结果是节省用电和安全费用。这些变化，将会保证那些最优秀的工人继续有工作，公司在来年将获得利润

在这一论证中，国家制刷公司的总裁声称，公司决定按每位雇员制刷数量计付工资，而不是按他们制刷所花的时间付酬。总裁声称，这将致使生产更多更好的刷子，因工厂工作时间减少而裁减工作人员，节省电力和安全开支。总裁还说，这些变化将使公司拥有最优秀的工人并保证公司在来年赢利。理论上，总裁的说法听起来很好。但仔细审视，我们会发现，他/她的结论完全基于猜测，而非令人信服的事实。

其实，这位总裁根本没有进行论证。他/她仅仅提出了没有事实根据的结论而已。首先，总裁声称，以制刷数量计付雇员工资而不是按工作时间付酬，公司将生产更多更好的刷子。相反，很可能计件付酬这一做法将导致低质量的而非高质量的刷子。这一刺激方式将促使雇员努力生产更多的刷子，因而他们会尽快地工作而忽视质量。虽然很可能在制刷数量上会有增加，但是由于雇员竞相制造更多的刷子，很可能会致使质量降低。在没有质量控制机制的情况下，总裁所谓将生产更多更好的刷子这一结论很可能是基于良好的愿望，而不是事实。

第二，总裁谈到减少工作人员和减少工厂工作时间可以省钱。这一点也不符合任何形式的逻辑推理，更与总裁年度报告内容无关。没有证据证明有必要裁减工作人员。此外，雇员会希望工作同样的时间，以便尽可能多地制造刷子，最大限度地增加收入。所以裁减工作人员和缩短工厂工作时间并不会省钱。的确，很可能雇员将被迫工作更长的时间来生产更多的刷子，其结果是增加而不是减少工厂工作时间。进而言之，除非公司确定一个制刷数量的最高限度，否则将不会在电力上有任何节约，也不会在安全费用上有任何节约，因为工厂将比变革前工作更长的时间，至少也是与变革前同样的时间。

最后，总裁声称，政策的变革将会确保"最优秀"的工人继续拥有他们的工作，而且公司在来年将获利。又一次，这些都是毫无根据的结论。什么样的工人是公司认为最优秀的呢?生产最多刷子的工人呢，还是生产质量最好的刷子的工人呢?说最优秀的工人是那些制刷数量最多的，这将是非常危险的，因为纯粹的数字评估体制没有把质量考虑进去。这样的体制实际上会导致最优秀的工人遭淘汰而保留那些以速度为要素而不是以工艺为要素的工人。再者，实施这一新政策并不能保证公司在来年获利。如果"计件工资制"的政策鼓励雇员提高生产速度但牺牲质量，那么很可能公司将蒙受销售损失从而也蒙受利润损失。论证过程中并没有提供证据来支持最优秀的工人将被留在公司以及利润将获得保证这一结论。

总之，总裁并没有提供证据来证明这一计划将产生他/她所标榜的那些结果。因为没有进一步的证据来证明计划将会按所宣传的那样得到实施，所以总裁显得在做一厢情愿的揣测，而不是在进行理性的推论。