GMAT作文范文及解析：经理人建议书
The following appeared as part of a recommendation by one of the directors of the Beta Company.
“The Alpha Company has just reduced its workforce by laying off fifteen percent of its employees in all divisions and at all levels, and it is encouraging early retirement for other employees. As you know, the Beta Company manufactures some products similar to Alpha’s, but our profits have fallen over the last few years. To improve Beta’s competitive position, we should try to hire a significant number of Alpha’s former workers, since these experienced workers can provide valuable information about Alpha’s successful methods, will require little training, and will be particularly motivated to compete against Alpha.”
β公司的一个经理人的一份建议书：
α公司通过在所有部门和所有层次裁减了15%的员工减少了工作人员，它还鼓励其他员工提前退休。如你所知，β公司生产部分和α公司类似的产品，但我们的利润在过去几年内下降了。为了提高β的竞争力，我们应该试着雇用大量的α的前雇员，因为这些有经验的工人将提供关于α成功方法的有用信息，而且基本不需要培训，并将更有动力与α竞争。
1. According to the common sense the workers who are laid off are always the least effective and well-experienced.
2. Whether the Alpha Company is successful or not is still open to doubt.
3. The recruitment will bring benefit to the company and cost at the same time. No conclusion can be given until the benefit-cost analysis has been made.
4. The products the two companies manufacture are just similar. The skills the Alpha company's workers own will not be applicable to the Beta company.
1. A公司的雇员是否能提供有用信息还不知道。因为被说服退休的，很可能是效率低下的，从事非核心的工作。
2. 没有证据证明A公司是否利润上升，有可能也是下降，甚至下降的更快。所以A的雇员即使提供信息也未必有用。
3. A与B是否有足够相似，很可能差很远。只有一些相似产品，不代表所有，而且很可能并不是这些产品导致的利润下降。
4. 很可能得到的利润不能补偿多雇佣的人员的cost。
A director of Beta Company suggests that Beta can improve its competitive position by hiring a significant number of former Alpha Company employees who have recently retired or been laid off. The director’s reasoning is that because Alpha manufactures some products similar to Beta’s, former Alpha employees would be experienced and need little training, could provide valuable information about Alpha’s successful methods, and would be particularly motivated to compete against Alpha. The director’s argument is problematic in several respects.
First of all, the argument presupposes that Alpha’s methods are successful. This is not necessarily the case. To the contrary, the fact that Alpha has laid off 15 percent of its employees in every division and at every level suggests that Alpha’s methods may have been unsuccessful and that downsizing was necessary for the company to minimize financial losses.
Secondly, the director assumes that the former Alpha employees hired by Beta will be well-trained and valuable. During a typical lay-off, however, the best and most experienced employees are typically the last to be laid off. By following the director’s advice, Beta would probably be hiring Alpha’s least efficient and least experienced employees—that is, those who would be least valuable to Beta.
Thirdly, the author assumes that Alpha and Beta are sufficiently similar so that former Alpha employees could provide special value for Beta. However, we are informed only that Beta manufactures “some products similar to Alpha’s.” It is possible that former Alpha employees have experience with only a small segment of Beta’s product line, and thus have little inside information of any value to Beta.
Finally, the claim that former Alpha employees would be motivated to compete against Alpha is partially unwarranted. While many of those who were laid off may be so motivated, those who retired early from Alpha probably departed on good terms with Alpha, and would in any event be unmotivated to reenter the work force.
In conclusion, the argument fails to provide key facts needed to assess it. To better evaluate the director’s suggestion, we would need more information about why Alpha reduced its work force, what type of workers left Alpha and under what circumstances, and how similar Alpha’s range of products is to Beta’s.