In this analysis, the arguer claims that P University should offer employment to the spouse of each new faculty member that they hire. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites the example of B College where professors prefer to have their spouse employed in the same geographical area. In addition, the arguer assumes that this offer of possible job for their spouse on the campus, no matter whether it will be accepted, is the only factor that new professors consider in deciding whether to accept a university position. This argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.
In this argument, the arguer advocates that the C Corporation should hire DF, a family owned local company that offers varied menu of fish and poultry, instead of GT Company, the present supplier of food in C’s employee cafeteria. The recommendation is based on the observation that the GT is expensive, that its prices have kept rising, that it does not serve special diets, and that three employees complained about it. Meanwhile, the arguer assumes D to be a better choice for C because a sample lunch of this company that the arguer happened to taste was delicious. This argument is problematic for two reasons.
The conclusion in this argument is that F College can expect to increase enrollment by promising to find jobs for students after graduation. In support of this prediction, the arguer claims that college-bound students are increasingly concerned about job prospects after graduation. Moreover, the arguer assumes that this attempt has three benefits: (1) to enable F to compete with more famous schools; (2) to encourage students to start career preparation early; (3) to encourage students to complete their coursework. This argument is fraught with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted assumptions.
2. 中间段
First, the argument is based on a false analogy. The arguer simply assumes that airplane mechanics and automobile maintenance crews perform many similar functions, but he does not provide any evidence that their functions are indeed comparable. As we know, the structure, operation and function of airplanes and those of automobiles differ conspicuously. It is true that both the airplane and the automobile need refueling and engine maintenance, but even here there exist fundamental differences: the structure and the building materials of each other’s engines are different, so is the oil they use. Therefore, even though the two-week Quality-Care Seminar proved effective in improving the performance of the maintenance crews in the automobile racing industry, there is no guarantee that it will work just as well for airplane mechanics.
Second, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if the maintenance of the airline has been improved as a result of sending its mechanics to the Seminar, which is, of course , unwarranted assumption, it does not follow that there will be 美国GREater profits as well as 美国GREater customer satisfaction for airline. As we know, customer satisfaction depends on several major factors other than good maintenance of the airplane. For instance, customers are generally concerned about the punctuality, the on-board service, the ticket price, the luggage handling procedure and even the discount, all of which are ignored by the arguer. Besides, the arguer does not provide any solid information concerning how the airplane can improve its profits. Unless Get-Away Airlines can significantly increase its customers or passengers and at the same time cut down its costs, both of which are unknown from this argument, there is no guarantee that it will “inevitably” harvest 美国GREater profits. Actually, the arguer’s recommendation of investing in this training program a the only way to increase customer satisfaction an profits would most probably turn out to be ineffective and misleading.英语作文
【在百度搜索更多与“GMAT写作辅导--作文满分速成法(2)”相关英语作文】