Arg-86

The following appeared in a memo at the XYZ Company:

"When XYZ lays off employees, it pays Delany Personnel Firm to offer those employees assistance in creating resumes and developing interviewing skills, if they so desire. Laid-off employees have benefited greatly from Delany's services. Last year those who used Delany found jobs much more quickly than did those who did not. Recently, it has been proposed that we use the less expensive Walsh Personnel Firm in place of Delany. This would be a mistake because eight years ago, when XYZ was using Walsh, only half of the workers we laid off at that time found jobs within a year. Moreover, Delany is clearly superior, as evidenced by its total number of staff and branch offices. After all, last year Delany's clients took an average of six months to find jobs, whereas Walsh's clients took nine."

——————————————————————————————————————————

满分范文赏析

This XYZ company memo recommends that XYZ continue to use Delany instead of Walsh as its personnel job-placement efforts. To support this recommendation the memo points out that 8 years ago, when XYZ was using Walsh, only half of XYZ's laid-off workers found new jobs within a year. The memo also indicates that last year XYZ employees using Delany's services found jobs much more quickly than those who did not, and that the average Delany client found a job in 6 months, compared to 9 months for the average Walsh client. The memo also mentions that Delany has more branch offices and staff than Walsh. I find the memo's argument, that the company should stick with Delany as opposed to switching is a sensible one but needs to be further developed.

【此段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument开头段结构，即：C – E - F的开头结构，首句概括原文的C(Conclusion)。接下来的一句话概括了原文为了支持他的结论所引用的E(Evidence)。最后尾句中给出开头段到正文段的过渡句，指出原文在逻辑上存在F(Flaw)。

【此段功能】

本段作为Argument开头段，具体功能就在发起攻击。首先，概括原文的结论： XYZ公司应该继续公寓Delany（简称D）公司而不是Walsh(简称W)公司来解决其员工的就业。接下来分别列举了原文为了支持这个结论引用的证据：8年前XYZ公司用W公司时，一年内只有一半的下岗工人找到工作。去年XYZ公司用D公司服务的员工找到工作的速度比没用的要快，且M的找工作时间比W快。D比W有更多分公司和员工。论据的归纳用于铺垫出正文段的具体攻击。最后点出原文存在逻辑错误，引出后面的分析。

To begin with, Walsh's prior rates of placement may not indicate that the current rate of job placement is equally high. Perhaps the placement rate 8 years ago was due to a general economic downturn or some other factor beyond Walsh's control. For that matter, perhaps the rate was relatively high among all placement services during that time period. In short, without ruling out other possible reasons for Walsh's comparatively low placement rate 8 years ago, there is no evidence to suggest that Walsh is currently a less attractive option.

【此段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第一个逻辑错误的错误类型和原文犯错位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。

【此段功能】

本段作为正文第一段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：时间类错误。作者认为原文所引用“8年前W公司帮助ＸＹＺ员工就业”的例子不具有说服力。为此，作者提出其他可能性反驳原文：可能8年前W公司就业服务不好是由于经济萧条，很可能当时W公司的就业率要高于其它同类公司。

 The memo also makes two hasty assumptions about the benefits of Delany's services last year. One such assumption is that these services were in fact responsible for placing the workers who employed Delany’s services. It is entirely possible that the comparative success of this group was due to their own personal aggressive job-seeking efforts, which might even have only included using Walsh's services. Also, the memo unfairly equates the speed with which one finds a job with job-seeking success. Common sense informs me that the effectiveness of a job search depends not only on how quickly one finds a job, but also on compensation, benefits, location, and type of work.

【此段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第二个逻辑错误的错误类型和原文犯错位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。

【此段功能】

本段作为正文第二段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：错误因果。作者认为原文中引用的“XYZ公司在去年获得D公司的benefit”的例子存在两个疑点。一方面暗示了员工就业好是因为采用D公司服务，另一方面混淆了“就业速度”和“就业成功”这两个概念。作者给出其他可能性来反驳原文，可能员工就业好是因为他们自身实力强，并非D的就业帮助。而就业效率除了表现为找到工作的速度，还表现为compensation, benefits, location,和 type of work等其他方面。

Furthermore, the difference in the two firms' overall placement time last year does not necessarily indicate that Delany would be the better choice to serve XYZ's laid-off employees. These employees might have particular skills or needs that are not representative of the two firms' clients in general. Furthermore, a single year's placement statistics hardly suffices as ground upon which to make meaningful recommendations or conclusions.

【此段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第三个逻辑错误的错误类型和原文犯错位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。

【此段功能】

本段作为正文第三段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：调查类错误。作者认为原文引用的“去年D公司就业速度好于W公司的”调查是不合理的。一方面参加就业服务的可能具有特长或不同需求，并不能代表两家公司客户的具体情况。另一方面，一年的数据并不能说明问题

Finally, the fact that Delany has more branch offices and a larger staff than Walsh proves nothing in itself about which firm would be more effective in finding jobs for laid-off XYZ employees. Perhaps these employees generally look for jobs in geographic areas or industries outside of Delany's domain. Or perhaps the number of Delany staff members per office is actually lower than at Walsh. Either scenario, if true, would certainly cast some doubt on the argument.

【此段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument正文段结构，即：概括第四个逻辑错误的错误类型和原文犯错位置，接下来给出合理的理由和他因来反驳原文。

【此段功能】

本段作为正文第四段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：错误因果。作者认为，D公司有更多分公司和员工并不能说明它比W公司更effective。进一步，作者提出其他可能性来反驳原文观点，可能其他公司在D公司辖区之外招人，或者D公司每个office的员工数少于W公司。

In sum, as it stands, the recommendation is not well supported. To bolster it the speaker must provide better evidence. For example, if the audience had proof that Delany's services have consistently helped laid-off XYZ employees find jobs, the argument would be more convincing. Instead of relying on 8-year-old statistics, the speaker should provide better evidence that Walsh's services would be inferior to Delany's in the foreseeable future. Accordingly, to better assess the recommendation it would be helpful to compare the number of staff members per office at the two firms, and the level of experience of those staff members.

【此段结构】

本段采用了标准的Argument结尾段结构，即：C – S的结尾结构，首先再次重申原文的站不住脚的Conclusion，接下来给出给合理建议Suggestion。

【此段功能】

本段作为Argument结尾段，具体功能就总结归纳+建议措施，首先再次重申原文中的提议是不合理的。接下来作者给出使原文更有说服力的合理化建议：一是必须要有例子说明D公司一直帮助下岗职工找到工作。二是要引用更多的证据表明D公司在未来优于W公司。三是要对两家公司每个办公室的平均员工数以及员工的经验进行全方位比较。结尾段的几条建议非常规整的隐射前面的几条主要错误，前后呼应，文章有力结尾，浑然一体。

——————————————————————————————————————————

满分要素剖析

一、语言表达

1. To begin with, Walsh's prior rates of placement may not indicate that...(标志性GRE argument的错误因果分析段开头) Perhaps ... was due to ... or some other factor . For that matter, perhaps ... .（标志性的GRE argument 分析语句，提出其他原因或其他可能性） In short, without ruling out other possible reasons ... , there is no evidence ... (标志性的GRE argument论证段结尾，再次重申原文中的错误).

2. Furthermore, a single year's placement statistics hardly suffices as ground upon which to make meaningful recommendations or conclusions.

（标志性的GRE argument调查类错误分析语句）

二、逻辑结构

本文是非常严谨的开头段-正文段1-正文段2--正文段3-正文段4-结尾段的的六段论逻辑体系。开头段按照C-E-F的逻辑结构，顺利引出后文的分析。论证段中，从提出错误，到分析错误，到给出可能性，最后总结错误，层次清晰，衔接自然。结尾段总结全文，重申错误，给出合理化建议。这样一篇文章从开头到结尾逻辑严谨，内容清晰，圆满的完成了论证的作用。