下面是一篇官方給出滿分的ARGUMENT範文,我們來一起賞析,看看它為何能scored six (先讀文章,再看天道教育的點評)
The following appeared as part of an article in a daily newspaper:
"Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring
on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it
makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus
reduce their payroll expenses and save money."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be
sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument.
For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the
thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the
conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or
refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically
sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
首段
This argument states that it makes financial sense for employers to make
the workplace safer because by making the workplace safer then lower wages could
be paid to employees. This conclusion is based on the premise that as the list
of physical injury increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase.
However, there are several assumptions that may not necessarily apply to this
argument. For example, the costs associated with making the workplace safe must
outweigh the increased payroll expenses due to hazardous conditions. Also, one
must look at the plausability of improving the work environment. And finally,
because most companies agree that as the risk of injury increases so will wages
doesn't necessarily mean that the all companies which have hazardous work
environments agree.
中間段1
The first issue to be addressed is whether increased labor costs justify
large capital expenditures to improve the work environment. Clearly one could
argue that if making the workplace safe would cost an exorbitant amount of money
in comparison to leaving the workplace as is and paying slightly increased wages
than it would not make sense to improve the work environment. For example, if
making the workplace safe would cost $100 million versus additional payroll
expenses of only $5,000 per year, it would make financial sense to simply pay
the increased wages. No business or business owner with any sense would pay all
that extra money just to save a couple dollars and improve employee health and
relations. To consider this, a cost benefit analysis must be made. I also feel
that although a cost benefit analysis should be the determining factor with
regard to these decisions making financial sense, it may not be the determining
factor with regard to making social, moral and ethical sense.
中間段2
This argument also relies on the idea that companies solely use financial
sense in analysing improving the work environment. This is not the case.
Companies look at other considerations such as the negative social ramifications
of high on-job injuries. For example, Toyota spends large amounts of money
improving its environment because while its goal is to be profitable, it also
prides itself on high employee morale and an almost perfectly safe work
environment. However, Toyota finds that it can do both, as by improving employee
health and employee relations they are guaranteed a more motivated staff, and
hence a more efficient staff; this guarantees more money for the business as
well as more safety for the employees.
中間段3
Finally one must understand that not all work environments can be made
safer. For example, in the case of coal mining, a company only has limited ways
of making the work environment safe. While companies may be able to ensure some
safety precautions, they may not be able to provide all the safety measures
necessary. In other words, a mining company has limited ability to control the
air quality within a coal mine and therefore it cannot control the risk of
employees getting blacklung. In other words, regardless of the intent of the
company, some jobs are simply dangerous in nature.
末端
In conclusion, while at first it may seem to make financial sense to
improve the safety of the work environment sometimes it truly does not make
financial sense. Furthermore, financial sense may not be the only issue a
company faces. Other types of analyses must be made such as the social
ramifications of an unsafe work environment and the overall ability of a company
to improve that environment (i.e。, coal mine)。 Before any decision is made, all
this things must be considered, not simply the reduction of payroll
expenses.
這篇官方欽定滿分的範文,其最明顯的優點在於:
1. 字數高達599words, 充分體現了字數為王的判分傾向。
2. 標準的五段制,首段、末端,中間三段,看上去很美。
3. 沒有陳詞濫調、滿篇廢話的模板式語言。
只有以上三點離滿分還是很遠的,之所以SIX,我看更重要的在於,每段各盡其責,既獨立又統一,形成了完整的ARGUMENT,specifically:
1.
首段再現了原TOPIC的推理過程,並指出其assumptions多有不適;尤其令閱卷人高興的是:首段在最後簡化羅列了推理中的三個問題。要知道美國人就喜歡的作文---總分式,在首段就把三個ideas羅列出來,然後在中間三段分別展開,先總後分,一目瞭然。
2. 中一的TS -- “The first issue to be addressed is whether increased labor
costs justify large capital expenditures to improve the work
environment.”可謂是一針見血,一劍封喉。對於這樣嚴重的推理漏洞,如果不首先指出,其argument必然軟弱乏力。此所謂Topic中的“必削點”,不可不察。
3. 中二的TS – “This argument also relies on the idea that companies solely use
financial sense in analysing improving the work
environment.”這可謂是劍走偏鋒,獨闢蹊徑,出人所料。文章竟然批評了Topic以錢為本經營理念,提出了要以人為本,這樣寫是有一定風險,畢竟這不是Issue。那本文是如何化險為夷的呢?且看本段最後一句“this
guarantees more money for the business as well as more safety for the
employees.”我不由得長舒一口,人家再次迴歸了,又回到了Topic中以“Money”為本的推理。
4. 中三的TS – “Finally one must understand that not all work environments can
be made safer.”這充分體現了作者不只是坐而論道的arguer,而是關心其可行性的現實主義者,考慮到方案本身的可行性和侷限性。
5.
末端不但對首段提出的論點做出了重複性的總結,而且又不厭其煩地吧中間三段的ideas一一羅列。如此“囉嗦”估計令某些同學略有不齒,但這恰恰是美國人的最愛,cultural
shock了吧?
本文最令我欣賞的地方,就是對EXAMPLES的運用
1. 中間段一,運用了“設例”(假設的情況),$100
million啦、$5,000了,很幼稚是吧?可美國人喜歡啊;咱中國的學生,尤其是理工科的,喜歡用一些相當高深的例子,有沒有想過那些閱卷老師能看懂嗎?尤其是在極短時間內,他們IQ又不高,知識又不多,聯想又不豐富……
2. 中間段二,運用了“具例”(具體的例子),舉一個婦孺皆知的Toyota例子把想說明的問題統統道出,再次體現出美國人喜歡淺顯易懂的事例。
3.
中間段三,運用了“泛例”(某一類人、團體或組織),通過採煤行業指出了計劃可行性的所受到的制約,一個多麼質樸無華的泛例,充分地考慮到了閱卷老師的理解能力。
以上這一切怎能不讓美國閱卷者頻頻頷首,嘖嘖稱善呢?他或她手中的筆在紙上劃出了一條美麗的弧線 —— 6
相反,有些中國學生,憑藉自己繁密的邏輯、淵深的例子和雲霧繚繞的行文,每每令那些閱卷者咬脣咂舌,shrug連連,又怎能獲得一個理想的分數呢?你挑戰了他的智商,他必然報復你的分數