网站导航     在线客服  
   首页    GMAT   冲刺宝典   GMAT作文AWA   正文
学生选择在小站备考:30天 534010名,今日申请8352人    备考咨询 >>


2015年03月16日15:05 来源:小站整理
参与(0) 阅读(3635)






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.


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.


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.


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.



Finally one must understand that not all work environments can be made safer. For example, in the case of coal mining, a company only has limited ways of making the work environment safe. While companies may be able to ensure some safety precautions, they may not be able to provide all the safety measures necessary. In other words, a mining company has limited ability to control the air quality within a coal mine and therefore it cannot control the risk of employees getting blacklung. In other words, regardless of the intent of the company, some jobs are simply dangerous in nature.


In conclusion, while at first it may seem to make financial sense to improve the safety of the work environment sometimes it truly does not make financial sense. Furthermore, financial sense may not be the only issue a company faces. Other types of analyses must be made such as the social ramifications of an unsafe work environment and the overall ability of a company to improve that environment (i.e., coal mine). Before any decision is made, all this things   must be considered, not simply the reduction of payroll expenses.


1. GMAT作文字数高达599words, 充分体现了字数为王的判分倾向。

2. GMAT考试时采取标准的五段制,首段、末端,中间三段,看上去很美。

3. 没有陈词滥调、满篇废话的模板式语言。





A 6 paper presents a cogent, well-articulated critique of the argument and demonstrates mastery of the elements of effective writing.

A typical paper in this category exhibits the following characteristics:

1.clearly identifies important features of the argument and analyzes them insightfully

2.develops ideas cogently, organizes them logically, and connects them with clear transitions

3.effectively supports the main points of the critique

4.demonstrates control of language, including diction and syntactic variety

5.demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English (i.e., grammar, usage, and mechanics) but may have minor errors




GMAT作文成绩非常重要 别让认识误区害了你 GMAT作文要写多少字?文章字数要求详细介绍 避免GMAT作文低分必须注意这7个错误写法 详解GMAT作文分数对留学申请的2大影响 你的GMAT作文能够拿几分?详解2016年最新GMAT写作... GMAT写作AWA时间安排 精确到分钟的计划分享 GMAT分析性写作真实例题及写法完全解析 30分钟打造GMAT满分作文 看完这些你也能做到
版权申明| 隐私保护| 意见反馈| 联系我们| 关于我们| 网站地图| 最新资讯

©{beginDate}-{endDate} All Rights Reserved. {hbText}