設為首頁 | 加入收藏 | 會員中心
微信公眾號:
tingliku

關注微信:

關注微博:

GREGMAT滿分作文揭秘

學習GREGMAT寫作往往離不開“北美范文”,但其中良莠不齊,并非篇篇能稱之為“范”,畢竟它們不是ACTETS所欽定的文章。如此說來,Official Guide上的范文就彌足珍貴,無論6分的還是5分、4分的都要仔細分析,尤其是其中所給與的分析和評論更是要細細體味,領悟其精神,然后用心實踐。

下面是一篇官方給出滿分的ARGUMENT范文,我們來一起賞析,看看它為何能scored six (先讀文章,再看我的點評)

The following appeared as part of an article in a daily newspaper

Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money.

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

Benchmark 6

首段

This argument states that it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer because by making the workplace safer then lower wages could be paid to employees. This conclusion is based on the premise that as the list of physical injury increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. However, there are several assumptions that may not necessarily apply to this argument. For example, the costs associated with making the workplace safe must outweigh the increased payroll expenses due to hazardous conditions. Also, one must look at the plausability of improving the work environment. And finally, because most companies agree that as the risk of injury increases so will wages doesn't necessarily mean that the all companies which have hazardous work environments agree.

中間段1

The first issue to be addressed is whether increased labor costs justify large capital expenditures to improve the work environment. Clearly one could argue that if making the workplace safe would cost an exorbitant amount of money in comparison to leaving the workplace as is and paying slightly increased wages than it would not make sense to improve the work environment. For example, if making the workplace safe would cost $100 million versus additional payroll expenses of only $5,000 per year, it would make financial sense to simply pay the increased wages. No business or business owner with any sense would pay all that extra money just to save a couple dollars and improve employee health and relations. To consider this, a cost benefit analysis must be made. I also feel that although a cost benefit analysis should be the determining factor with regard to these decisions making financial sense, it may not be the determining factor with regard to making social, moral and ethical sense.

中間段2

This argument also relies on the idea that companies solely use financial sense in analysing improving the work environment. This is not the case. Companies look at other considerations such as the negative social ramifications of high on-job injuries. For example, Toyota spends large amounts of money improving its environment because while its goal is to be profitable, it also prides itself on high employee morale and an almost perfectly safe work environment. However, Toyota finds that it can do both, as by improving employee health and employee relations they are guaranteed a more motivated staff, and hence a more efficient staff; this guarantees more money for the business as well as more safety for the employees.

分享有禮分享到:
GREGMAT滿分作文揭秘 相關閱讀
查看更多>>

GRE經驗交流

發表評論網友已發表條評論,點擊查看
用戶名: 密碼: 驗證碼:
匿名發表 還沒注冊?免費注冊,領取禮物
中国福利彩票35选7