GMAT作文范文及解析：员工佩戴身份证章
The following appeared in a memorandum from the directors of a security and safety consulting service.
“Our research indicates that over the past six years no incidents of employee theft have been reported within ten of the companies that have been our clients. In analyzing the security practices of these ten companies, we have further learned that each of them requires its employees to wear photo identification badges while at work. In the future, therefore, we should recommend the use of such identification badges to all of our clients.”
安全保险服务经理的备忘录：
我们的研究指出，过去的6年中作为我们客户的10家公司没有被报道出有任何事故或员工盗窃行为。分析这10家公司的安全经验，我们了解到他们每家公司都要求员工工作时佩戴有照片的身份证章。因此，未来我们将把这种身份证章推荐给我们所有的顾客。
1. 没有报道出来不一定代表没有，可能是为了公司声誉reputation fame prestige没有说也可能是因为没有发现
2. 一定是佩带了有照片的身份证起了作用吗?这个很难说。两者只是碰巧同时发生，没有必然的因果联系。
3. 不是所有公司的员工偷盗问题都是很严重的。例如服务产品提供的公司。
1. 不一定没有reported就是没发生。可能是公司出于reputation的考虑，隐瞒conceal了偷窃。
2. 没有因果关系，胸牌不一定是原因。可能是管理的比较好，员工更加cautious等等。
3. 不一定其他的公司也适用一样的政策。很可能其他的公司不适合使用胸牌——比如服务业company who provide service rather than product，顾客比较多，并不好管理。
In this argument the directors of a security-and safety-consulting service conclude that the use of photo identification badges should be recommended to all of their clients as a means to prevent employee theft. Their conclusion is based on a study revealing that ten of their previous clients who use photo identification badges have had no incidents of employee theft over the past six-year period. The directors’ recommendation is problematic in several respects.
In the first place, the directors’ argument is based on the assumption that the reason for the lack of employee theft in the ten companies was the fact that their employees wear photo identification badges. However, the evidence revealed in their research establishes only a positive correlation between the lack of theft and the requirement to wear badges; it does not establish a causal connection between them. Other factors, such as the use of surveillance cameras or spot checks of employees’ briefcases and purses could be responsible for lack of employee theft within the ten companies analyzed.
In the second place, the directors assume that employee theft is a problem that is common among their clients and about which their clients are equally concerned. However, for some of their clients this might not be a problem at all. For example, companies that sell services are much less likely to be concerned about employee theft than those who sell products. Moreover, those that sell small products would be more concerned about theft than those that sell large products. Consequently, even if wearing badges reduces employee theft, it might not be necessary for all of the firm’s clients to follow this practice.
In conclusion, the director’s recommendation is not well supported. To strengthen the conclusion they must establish a causal relation between the wearing of identification badges and the absence of employee theft. They also must establish that the firm’s clients are sufficiently similar to all profit from this practice.