为了方便大家更好的对
The following appeared as part of an article in a computer magazine.
“A year ago Apex Manufacturing bought its managers computers for their homes and paid for telephone connections so that the managers could access Apex computers and data files from home after normal business hours. Since last year, productivity at Apex has increased by 15 percent. Other companies can learn from the success at Apex: given home computers and access to company resources, employees will work additional hours at home and thereby increase company profits.”
电脑杂志的文章：
一年前Apex制造公司给它的经理们在家买了电脑，并支付电话费，这样他们就可以在工作时间以外从家里连接到Apex的电脑和数据文件。从去年开始，Apex的生产能力增长了15%。其他公司可以借鉴Apex的成功，提供家用电脑和到公司资源的链接，雇员会在家里加班并提高公司利润。
In this article the author attributes Apex Manufacturing’s 15 percent increase in productivity over the past year to its decision to equip its manager with computers and paid telephone connections for their homes so that they would access company computers and files from home after normal business hours. On the basis of Apex’s experience the author recommends that other companies follow Apex’s example and provide computers and access to company resources to their employees. The author believes that such a policy would increase productivity and profits for other companies, just as it did for Apex. The author’s line of reasoning is questionable for several reasons.
First, the author assumes that Apex’s increase in productivity is due to its equipping its managers with home computers and access to company resources. However, the only evidence offered in support of this claim is the fact that Apex’s increase in productivity occurred after the home computers and after-hours access was provided. Unfortunately, this evidence is insufficient to establish the causal claim in question. While temporal precedence is one of the conditions required to establish a causal relationship between two events, by itself it is not a sufficient condition. Consequently, it is possible that Apex’s increase in productivity is not related to its decision to equip its managers with computers and after-hours access in the fashion required by the author’s argument.
Second, the author assumes that Apex and other companies are sufficiently similar to warrant a conclusion based on an analogy between them. Even if we accept the view that Apex’s increase in productivity was brought about by its policy of enabling its managers to work from home, differences between Apex and other companies could nullify this result. Lacking detailed information about Apex and the other companies in question it is difficult to assess the author’s conclusion.
In conclusion, the author’s argument is unconvincing. To strengthen the argument the author would have to provide additional evidence for the claim that Apex’s decision to provide its managers with home computers and access to company resources was responsible for its increase in productivity. Furthermore, it would be necessary to show that Apex and other companies are sufficiently similar to justify the analogy between them.
102. The following appeared in a memorandum sent by a vice-president of the Nadir Company to the company’s human resources department.
“Nadir does not need to adopt the costly ‘family-friendly’ programs that have been proposed, such as part-time work, work at home, and job-sharing. When these programs were made available at the Summit Company, the leader in its industry, only a small percentage of employees participated in them. Rather than adversely affecting our profitability by offering these programs, we should concentrate on offering extensive training that will enable employees to increase their productivity.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Nadir公司的副总给公司人力资源部的备忘录：
Nadir不需要采用推荐的昂贵的家庭友好项目，诸如半日工作，在家中工作，工作共享等等。当在其行业占据龙头位置的Summit公司采用了这些项目时，它的员工只有一小部分加入了。我们与其采用这些项目来影响我们的利润，不如集中提供一些扩展培训，来使员工提供他们的生产力。
1， false analogy
2， It is imprudent轻率的 to say the “family-friendly” programs are costly and not profitable.
3， Likewise, it is also imprudent to say the “family-friendly” programs are counterproductive.
4， either-or-choice
In this memorandum the vice president of Nadir Company recommends against the adoption of “family-friendly” program. The author’s line of reasoning is that family-friendly programs such as part-time work, work-at-home and job-sharing need not be adopted because Nadir’s employees will not widely participate in them. The vice president’s recommendation is unconvincing for several reasons.
In the first place, the fact that only a small percentage of Summit Company’s employees participated in these programs when they were offered is scant evidence that Nadir’s employees will do likewise. To warrant this inference the author must assume that Summit is representative of other companies such as Nadir. Unfortunately, the author has failed to provide evidence for this crucial assumption. For example, if Summit is an emerging high-tech company whose employees are young and unmarried whereas Nadir is an established low-tech company whose employees are middle-aged and married we can expect that the percentage of employees who desire to participate in family-friendly programs would be considerably different. Lacking specific information about the companies in question it is difficult to give much credence to the vice president’s position.
In the second place, the vice president has failed to make a case for the contention that the adoption of family-friendly programs will adversely affect Nadir’s profitability. On the face of it none of the programs mentioned require capital outlay for new equipment or additional office space. Unless the vice president assumes that employees who participate in such programs are less productive than their full-time counterparts it is difficult to comprehend the line of reasoning that leads to this view.
Finally, the vice president assumes that “family-friendly” programs will not increase Nadir’s productivity. Lacking evidence to the contrary, there is little motivation to accept this assumption as true. In fact, common sense suggests that part-time workers and job-sharers would be as productive as, or perhaps more productive than, full-time workers.
In conclusion, the vice president’s recommendation against adopting family-friendly programs is not convincing. To strengthen the conclusion it must be shown that Summit is representative of other companies such as Nadir. Additionally, evidence would have to be provided for the assumption that employees who participate in family-friendly programs are less productive than other employees.