GMAT新黄金80题及范文(十四)b
分类: GRE-GMAT英语
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.
“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.