GRE Argument写作范文赏析(1)

　　Argument 37

　　The following is a memorandum from the director of personnel to the president of Get-Away Airlines.

　　Since our mechanics are responsible for inspecting and maintaining our aircraft, Get-Away Airlines should pay to send them to the Quality-Care Seminar, a two-week seminar on proper maintenance procedures. I recommend this seminar because it is likely to be a wise investment, given that the automobile racing industry recently reported that the performance of its maintenance crews improved markedly after their crews had attended the seminar. These maintenance crews perform many of the same functions as do our mechanics, including refueling and repairing engines. The money we spend on sending our staff to the seminar will inevitably lead to improved maintenance and thus to greater customer satisfaction along with greater profits for our airline.

　　In this argument, the arguer concludes that sending the mechanics of Get-Away Airlines to a two-week Quality-Care Seminar on proper maintenance procedures will automatically lead to improved maintenance and to greater customer satisfaction along with greater profits for the airline. To support the conclusion, the arguer points out that the performance of the maintenance crews in the automobile racing industry improved markedly after their crews had attended the seminar. In addition, the arguer reasons that since the maintenance crews of the automobile racing industry and the mechanics of Get-Away Airlines perform many of the same functions, the airlines will gain similar benefits from the training program. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

　　First, the argument Is based on a false analogy. The arguer simply assumes that airplane mechanics and automobile maintenance crews perform many similar functions, but he does not provide any evidence that their functions are indeed comparable. As we know, the structure, operation and function of airplanes and those of automobiles differ conspicuously. It is true that both the airplane and the automobile need refueling and engine maintenance, but even here there exist fundamental differences: the structure and the building materials of each others engines are different, so is the oil they use. Therefore, even though the two-week Quality-Care Seminar proved effective in improving the performance of the maintenance crews in the automobile racing industry, there is no guarantee that it will work just as well for airplane mechanics.

　　Second, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if the maintenance of the airline has been improved as a result of sending its mechanics to the Seminar, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow that there will be greater profits as well as greater customer satisfaction for the airline. As we know, customer satisfaction depends on several major factors other than good maintenance of the airplane. For instance, customers are generally concerned about the punctuality, the on-board service, the ticket price, the luggage handling procedure and even the discount, all of which are ignored by the arguer. Besides, the arguer does not provide any solid information concerning how the airplane can improve its profits. Unless Get-Away Airlines can significantly increase its customers or passengers and at the same time cut down its costs, both of which are unknown from this argument, there is no guarantee that it will inevitably harvest greater profits. Actually, the arguers recommendation of investing in this training program as the only way to increase customer satisfaction and profits would most probably turn out to be ineffective and misleading.

　　In conclusion, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between sending Get-A ways mechanics to the Quality-Care Seminar and improved maintenance, greater customer satisfaction and greater profits for the airline. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide evidence that automobile maintenance and airplane maintenance are similar in every aspect. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the relationship between improved maintenance and greater customer satisfaction along with greater profits.