The following appeared as part of an article in a magazine devoted to regional life.
“Corporations should look to the city of Helios when seeking new business opportunities or a new location. Even in the recent recession, Helios’s unemployment rate was lower than the regional average. It is the industrial center of the region, and historically it has provided more than its share of the region’s manufacturing jobs. In addition, Helios is attempting to expand its economic base by attracting companies that focus on research and development of innovative technologies.”
一份面向地方生活的杂志上的一篇文章：
企业在寻找新的商机或位置时应该去Helios城。甚至在最近的衰退中，Helios的失业率也比地区平均水平低，它是地区的工业中心，历史上它提供的比它在地区制造业工作中分享的份额中更多。而且，Helios正试图通过吸引研究和发展革新技术的公司来扩张它的经济基础。
1. 作者认为应该到该地区建厂理由是这里的失业率很高。但是却没有给出因果关系。从常理来看这是没有道理的因为失业率高的地方可能更难雇佣到雇员从而使成本增加。
2. 作者认为该地区会鼓励研发，所以应该到该地区投资。但事实上就象作者说的那样该地区是制造业中心怎么可能有很多对技术和科研很熟练的人员。
1， 因为H地区industrial and manufacturing比较attractive，所以那里的工人很可能只适合做这类的，如果缺乏能够做innovative technologies and research的工人labor pool，那么很可能导致失败。
2， H的低失业率更可能成为坏处。因为比如有less available work force。企业必须提高wage才能吸引他们。提高了COST。
3， 错误的假设过去的成功能够代表未来。比方说已经饱和的资源、过分的竞争、以及可能出现的错误政策，都可能导致H地区的经济不再发达。
In this argument corporations are urged to consider the city of Helios when seeking a new location or new business opportunities. To support this recommendation, the author points out that Helios is the industrial center of the region, providing most of the region’s manufacturing jobs and enjoying a lower-than-average unemployment rate. Moreover, it is argued, efforts are currently underway to expand the economic base of the city by attracting companies that focus on research and development of innovative technologies. This argument is problematic for two reasons.
To begin with, it is questionable whether the available labor pool in Helios could support all types of corporations. Given that Helios has attracted mainly industrial and manufacturing companies in the past, it is unlikely that the local pool of prospective employees would be suitable for corporations of other types. For example, the needs of research and development companies would not be met by a labor force trained in manufacturing skills. For this reason, it’s unlikely that Helios will be successful in its attempt to attract companies that focus or research and development of innovative technologies.
Another problem with the available work force is its size. Due to the lower than average unemployment rate in Helios, corporations that require large numbers of workers would not find Helios attractive. The fact that few persons are out of work suggests that new corporations will have to either attract new workers to Helios or pay the existing workers higher wages in order to lure them away from their current jobs. Neither of these alternatives seems enticing to companies seeking to relocate.
In conclusion, the author has not succeeded in providing compelling reasons for selecting Helios as the site for a company wishing to relocate. In fact, the reasons offered function better as reasons for not relocating to Helios. Nor has the author provided compelling reasons for companies seeking new business opportunities to choose Helios.
8. The following appeared in the editorial section of a corporate newsletter.
“The common notion that workers are generally apathetic about management issues is false, or at least outdated: a recently published survey indicates that 79 percent of the nearly 1,200 workers who responded to survey questionnaires expressed a high level of interest in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs.”
一份社团实事通讯的编者按：
一般认为工人对管理事务缺乏兴趣的观点是错的，或至少是过时的。最近公布的调查显示回答了问卷的近1200工人中的79%表达了对公司重组，利润目标新设计的高度兴趣。
1. survey is doubtful: Detailed information should be given such as the absolute number of workers of that corporation.
2. insufficient sample: The corporation is not representative of all the other corporations.
3. gratuitous assumption: It is natural that workers are interested in the topics such as corporate structuring and design of benefits programs. This trend can not be cited to support the author’s allege.
Based upon a survey among workers that indicates a high level of interest in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs, the author concludes that workers are not apathetic about management issues. Specifically, it is argued that since 79 percent of the 1200 workers who responded to survey expressed interest in these topics, the notion that workers are apathetic about management issues is incorrect. The reasoning in this argument is problematic in several respects.
First, the statistics cited in the editorial may be misleading because the total number of workers employed by the corporation is not specified. For example, if the corporation employs 2000 workers, the fact that 79 percent of the nearly 1200 respondents showed interest in these topics provides strong support for the conclusion. On the other hand, if the corporation employs 200,000 workers, the conclusion is much weaker.
Another problem with the argument is that the respondents’ views are not necessarily representative of the views of the work force in general. For example, because the survey has to do with apathy, it makes sense that only less apathetic workers would respond to it, thereby distorting the overall picture of apathy among the work force. Without knowing how the survey was conducted, it is impossible to assess whether or not this is the case.
A third problem with the argument is that it makes a hasty generalization about the types of issues workers are interested in. It accords with common sense that workers would be interested in corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs, since these issues affect workers very directly. However, it is unfair to assume that workers would be similarly interested in other management issues—ones that do not affect them or affect them less directly.
In conclusion, this argument is not convincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author would have to show that the respondents account for a significant and representative portion of all workers. Additionally, the author must provide evidence of workers’ interest other management topics—not just those that affect workers directly.