GMAT考试写作指导：Argument范文二十

　　80. In this editorial, the author argues that it makes financial sense for employers to

　　make the workplace safer, in support of this claim the author reasons that since wages

　　paid to employees should increase as the risk of physical injury increases, the converse

　　should be true as well. Hence, by decreasing the risk of injury, employers could

　　decrease the wages paid to workers and thereby save money. This argument is

　　unconvincing for two reasons.

　　To begin with the author assumes that because companies would agree that as risk

　　of injury increases wages should also increase, they would also agree that as risk

　　decreases wages should also decrease accordingly. This is tantamount to the assumption

　　that risk of injury is the primary factor that determines workers wages. It is obvious

　　that few employers, and even fewer employees, would agree that this is the case. To

　　adopt this position one would have to disregard education, experience, and skill as

　　equally important factors in determining the wages paid to workers.

　　Secondly, the authors reasoning suggests that the only benefit of a safer

　　workplace is the savings employers could realize from lower wages. This is obviously

　　not true. The costs associated with accidents on the job could far outweigh any savings

　　that could be realized by paying workers lower wages.

　　In conclusion, the authors argument is unconvincing. Risk of injury is an

　　important factor to consider in determining the wages paid to workers but is not the only

　　such factor. Furthermore, there are far better reasons for employers to make the

　　workplace safe than the one presented by the author.