全国
取消
我们明确了argument任务的一个关键：先梳理题目本身（也就是作者）的逻辑思路，再从作者的逻辑思路里找漏洞。
这一讲，我们再用一篇passage来巩固。passage如下：
The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Quiot Manufacturing.
"During the past year, Quiot Manufacturing had 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than at the nearby Panoply Industries plant, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. Experts say that significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents are fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers. Therefore, to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents at Quiot and thereby increase productivity, we should shorten each of our three work shifts by one hour so that employees will get adequate amounts of sleep."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
这篇passage篇幅短小，逻辑也不复杂。我们可以做出如下梳理：
1）作者在句给出了两个比较：Quiot的事故数量比Panoply多出30%；Panoply的每个工作班次比Quiot短1小时。看来Panoply比Quiot安全，并且这个更安全的原因是Panoply的工作班次时间短1小时。
2）第二句中，作者给出另外一个情况：导师的说法是疲劳（fatigue）和缺觉（sleep deprivation）是许多事故的重要原因。看来上一句说到的安全或不安全的关键在于是否疲劳和缺觉。
3）作者在第三句就爽快给出结论：要减少事故数量，从而提升生产力，Quiot应该把3个班次中的每个工作班次缩短1小时，从而实现员工充足的睡眠。
至此，我们已经搞清楚了passage的思路，接下来，我们仔细检查每一个环节，同时发现其中的问题：
而如果Panoply的生产活动是500次，那么发生10起事故的话，事故率是2%。这时候虽然13起事故在数量上高于10起事故，但是事故率却是1.3%比2%低。
2）安全或不安全的原因真的就在于工作班次时间多出的1小时或者短的那1小时么？与工厂车间的环境无关？与工人的熟练程度无关？与工人穿戴的工作护具无关？与生产活动的复杂程度无关？与用于生产的机器情况无关？
3） 安全或不安全的关键在于是否疲劳和缺觉。仔细看导师的说法是“许多”事故的的重要原因是疲劳（fatigue）和缺觉（sleep deprivation）。
那如果Quiot的事故并不在这些“许多”事故的范畴中呢？毕竟导师没有说“所有”事故。
4）减少事故数量就能提升生产力？生产力的提升只有事故数量这一个因素？
5）Quiot应该把3个班次中的每个工作班次缩短1小时。那一天下来就是缩短了3小时。可不是一开始说的1小时。
6）缩短工时后，空余出来的时间，员工是用于睡眠么？万一是玩乐呢？万一是干私活挣外快呢？不是一样疲劳么？甚至更疲劳。
至此，我们发现了6个逻辑漏洞（当然，本题中可能有比此更多的漏洞）。
总之，我们可以通过梳理passage作者的思路来逐个找寻逐个质疑，这样，“漏网之鱼”的可能性就比较小。
以下的3个示范段落是以针对第1）、2）、3）点的为例：
The first assumption, crucial yet deceptive, is the scales of production – the number of production activities or products – at the two plants are the same. At this point, the author confuses the number of accidents with the incidence of accidents. In fact, Quiot may have a lower rate of accidents despite its 30 percent more accidents. For example, 13 accidents out of 1000 production activities equals an accident rate of 1.3%, and this rate would be lower than Panoply’s if there are 10 accidents out of 500 production activities at Panoply.
The second assumption is that Quiot and Panoply are the same in a number of important aspects, including the complexity of production, the machines their workers operate, the conditions of the workshops, and the level of skills their workers have. However, this assumption may prove wrong, since those factors, which are possible causes of accidents, may be different between the two plants. For example, the workshops of Quiot may be poor in ventilation and lighting, causing safety hazards in its production, and the proposed shortening of each work shift may not help if those hazards are not reduced or eliminated.
The author also assumes that accidents at Quiot are included in the many accidents the experts mention. However, this assumption is dubious. Since it is not the whole range of accidents, but a large part, that the experts mention, accidents at Quiot may be different from the many accidents mentioned by the experts and thus may not be attributed to fatigue and sleep deprivation.
* 高亮部分回应指令要求。
* 下划线部分回应逻辑疑点的类型。
这一讲给出的示范段落比较慷慨，看完这3个示范段落之后，大家可以再次对照上面的中文分析学习领会。