GMAT考试写作指导：Argument范文三七

　　33. The author of Perks Companys business plan recommends that funds currently

　　spent on the employee benefits package be redirected to either upgrade plant machinery

　　or build an additional plant. The author reasons that offering employees a generous

　　package of benefits and incentives year after year is no longer cost-effective given

　　current high unemployment rates, and that Perks can attract and keep good employees

　　without such benefits and incentives. While this argument has some merit, its line of

　　reasoning requires close examination.

　　To begin with, the author relies on the reasoning that it is unnecessary to pay

　　relatively high wages during periods of high unemployment because the market will

　　supply many good employees at lower rates of pay. While this reasoning may be sound

　　in a general sense, the particular industry that Perks is involved in may not be

　　representative of unemployment levels generally. It is possible that relatively few

　　unemployed people have the type of qualifications that match job openings at Perks, if

　　this is the case, the claim that it is easier now to attract good employees at lower wages

　　is ill-founded.

　　Secondly, the argument relies on the assumption that the cost-effectiveness of a

　　wage policy is determined solely by whatever wages a market can currently bear. This

　　assumption overlooks the peripheral costs of reducing or eliminating benefits. For

　　example, employee morale is likely to decline if Perks eliminates benefits; as a result,

　　some employees could become less productive, and others might quit. Even if Perks can

　　readily replace those employees, training costs and lower productivity associated with

　　high turnover may outweigh any advantages of redirecting funds to plant construction.

　　Moreover, because the recommended reduction in benefits is intended to fund the

　　retrofitting of an entire plant or the building of a new one, the reduction would

　　presumably be a sizable one; consequently, the turnover costs associated with the

　　reduction might be very high indeed.

　　In conclusion, this argument is not convincing, since it unfairly assumes that a

　　broad employment statistic applies to one specific industry, and since it ignores the

　　disadvantages of implementing the plan. Accordingly, I would suspend judgment about

　　the recommendation until the author shows that unemployment in Parks industry is

　　high and until the author produces a thorough cost-benefit analysis of the proposed plan.