GMAT考试：Argument写作范文四十一
分类: GRE-GMAT英语
81.
The vice president of Nostrum argues that implementing an increase in health and retirement benefits for employees is not a good idea at this time. His main line of reasoning s that an increase in benefits is both financially unjustified and unnecessary—financially unjustified because last year's profits were lower than the preceding year's, and unnecessary because Nostrum's chief competitor offers lower benefits to its employees and because a recent Nostrum employee survey indicates that two-thirds of the respondents viewed the current benefits package favorably While the argument has some merit, it is not completely convincing.
Admittedly the vice president's reasoning linking employee benefits with company profits seems reasonable on its face. Companies that are not profitable are ill-advised to take on additional costs such as increased employee benefits. However, the fact that Nostrum's profits last year were lower than the preceding year does not imply that Nostrum is experiencing financial difficulties that preclude it from increasing employee benefits at this time. Perhaps the previous year's profits were extremely large; whereas last year's profits, albeit lower, were sufficient to fund an increase in the benefits package without threatening the company's bottom line.
Also, the fact that Nostrum's chief competitor provides lower benefits to its employees is not a good reason for Nostrum to deny an increase to its employees. Employee loyalty is an important asset to any company, and providing good pay and
good benefits are among the best ways to acquire it. Nostrum would be well advised to assure that its employees have little reason to seek employment elsewhere, and especially from its chief competitor.
Finally, one can infer from the survey's results that a full one-third of the respondents may have viewed the current benefits package unfavorably. If so, such widespread satisfaction would weaken the vice president's argument. Lacking more specific information about how these other employees responded, it is impossible to assess the reliability of the survey's results or to make an informed recommendation.
In conclusion the vice president's argument against implementing a benefits increase is unconvincing. To strengthen the argument, he must provide evidence that the increase in benefits would have a negative impact on the company's overall profitability. Additionally, he must provide more information about the manner in which the survey was conducted before we can determine the degree of employee satisfaction of the current benefits
82.
This article concludes that businesses using commercial television to promote their products will achieve the greatest advertising success by sponsoring only highly-rated programs—preferably, programs resembling the highly-rated non-commercial programs on public channels. Supporting this claim is a recent study indicating that many programs judged by viewers to be high in quality appeared on noncommercial networks, and that the most popular shows on commercialtelevision are typically sponsored by the best-selling products. This argument is weak because it depends on three questionable assumptions.
The first of these assumptions is that non-commercial public television programs judged by viewers to be high in quality are also popular. However, the study cited by the author concerns viewer attitudes about the "high quality" of programs on noncommercial public television, not about their popularity. A program might rate highly as to quality but not in terms of popularity. Thus, the author unfairly assumes that highly-rated public television programs are necessarily widely viewed, or popular.
The argument also assumes that programs resembling popular non-commercial programs will also be popular on commercial television. However, the audiences for the two types of programs differ significantly in their tastes. For example, a symphony series may be popular on public television but not as a prime-time network show, because public-television viewers tend to be more interested than commercial-television viewers in the arts and higher culture. Thus, a popular program in one venue may be decidedly unpopular in the other.
A third assumption is that products become best-sellers as a result of their being advertised on popular programs. While this may be true in some cases, it is equally possible that only companies with products that are already best-sellers can afford the higher ad rates that popular shows demand. Accordingly, a lesser-known product from a company on a smaller budget might be better off running repeated but less expensive—ads on less popular shows than by running just one or two costly ads on a top-rated show.
In conclusion, the results of the cited study do not support the author s conclusion. To better evaluate the argument, we need to know the intended meaning of the phrase "highly-rated." To strengthen the argument, the author must limit his conclusion by acknowledging that popularity in public television might not translate to popularity in commercial television, and that the best advertising strategy for companies with best-selling products may not be feasible for other businesses.
The vice president of Nostrum argues that implementing an increase in health and retirement benefits for employees is not a good idea at this time. His main line of reasoning s that an increase in benefits is both financially unjustified and unnecessary—financially unjustified because last year's profits were lower than the preceding year's, and unnecessary because Nostrum's chief competitor offers lower benefits to its employees and because a recent Nostrum employee survey indicates that two-thirds of the respondents viewed the current benefits package favorably While the argument has some merit, it is not completely convincing.
Admittedly the vice president's reasoning linking employee benefits with company profits seems reasonable on its face. Companies that are not profitable are ill-advised to take on additional costs such as increased employee benefits. However, the fact that Nostrum's profits last year were lower than the preceding year does not imply that Nostrum is experiencing financial difficulties that preclude it from increasing employee benefits at this time. Perhaps the previous year's profits were extremely large; whereas last year's profits, albeit lower, were sufficient to fund an increase in the benefits package without threatening the company's bottom line.
Also, the fact that Nostrum's chief competitor provides lower benefits to its employees is not a good reason for Nostrum to deny an increase to its employees. Employee loyalty is an important asset to any company, and providing good pay and
good benefits are among the best ways to acquire it. Nostrum would be well advised to assure that its employees have little reason to seek employment elsewhere, and especially from its chief competitor.
Finally, one can infer from the survey's results that a full one-third of the respondents may have viewed the current benefits package unfavorably. If so, such widespread satisfaction would weaken the vice president's argument. Lacking more specific information about how these other employees responded, it is impossible to assess the reliability of the survey's results or to make an informed recommendation.
In conclusion the vice president's argument against implementing a benefits increase is unconvincing. To strengthen the argument, he must provide evidence that the increase in benefits would have a negative impact on the company's overall profitability. Additionally, he must provide more information about the manner in which the survey was conducted before we can determine the degree of employee satisfaction of the current benefits
82.
This article concludes that businesses using commercial television to promote their products will achieve the greatest advertising success by sponsoring only highly-rated programs—preferably, programs resembling the highly-rated non-commercial programs on public channels. Supporting this claim is a recent study indicating that many programs judged by viewers to be high in quality appeared on noncommercial networks, and that the most popular shows on commercialtelevision are typically sponsored by the best-selling products. This argument is weak because it depends on three questionable assumptions.
The first of these assumptions is that non-commercial public television programs judged by viewers to be high in quality are also popular. However, the study cited by the author concerns viewer attitudes about the "high quality" of programs on noncommercial public television, not about their popularity. A program might rate highly as to quality but not in terms of popularity. Thus, the author unfairly assumes that highly-rated public television programs are necessarily widely viewed, or popular.
The argument also assumes that programs resembling popular non-commercial programs will also be popular on commercial television. However, the audiences for the two types of programs differ significantly in their tastes. For example, a symphony series may be popular on public television but not as a prime-time network show, because public-television viewers tend to be more interested than commercial-television viewers in the arts and higher culture. Thus, a popular program in one venue may be decidedly unpopular in the other.
A third assumption is that products become best-sellers as a result of their being advertised on popular programs. While this may be true in some cases, it is equally possible that only companies with products that are already best-sellers can afford the higher ad rates that popular shows demand. Accordingly, a lesser-known product from a company on a smaller budget might be better off running repeated but less expensive—ads on less popular shows than by running just one or two costly ads on a top-rated show.
In conclusion, the results of the cited study do not support the author s conclusion. To better evaluate the argument, we need to know the intended meaning of the phrase "highly-rated." To strengthen the argument, the author must limit his conclusion by acknowledging that popularity in public television might not translate to popularity in commercial television, and that the best advertising strategy for companies with best-selling products may not be feasible for other businesses.