97. The following appeared as part of an article in a computer magazine.
A year ago Apex1 Manufacturing bought its managers computers for their homes and paid for telephone connections so that the managers could access Apex computers and data files from home after normal business hours. Since last year, productivity at Apex has increased by 15 percent. Other companies can learn from the success at Apex: given home computers and access to company resources, employees will work additional hours at home and thereby2 increase company profits.
电脑杂志的文章：
一年前Apex制造公司给它的经理们在家买了电脑，并支付电话费，如此他们就能在工作时间以外从家连接到Apex的电脑和数据文件。从去年开始，Apex的生产能力增长了15%。其他公司可以借鉴Apex的成功，提供家用电脑和到公司资源的链接，雇员会在家加班并提升公司收益。
In this article the author attributes Apex Manufacturings 15 percent increase in productivity over the past year to its decision to equip its manager with computers and paid telephone connections for their homes so that they would access company computers and files from home after normal business hours. On the basis of Apexs experience the author recommends that other companies follow Apexs example and provide computers and access to company resources to their employees. The author believes that such a policy would increase productivity and profits for other companies, just as it did for Apex. The authors line of reasoning is questionable3 for several reasons.
First, the author assumes that Apexs increase in productivity is due to its equipping its managers with home computers and access to company resources. However, the only evidence offered in support of this claim is the fact that Apexs increase in productivity occurred after the home computers and after-hours access was provided. Unfortunately, this evidence is insufficient4 to establish the causal claim in question. While temporal precedence is one of the conditions required to establish a causal relationship between two events, by itself it is not a sufficient condition. Consequently, it is possible that Apexs increase in productivity is not related to its decision to equip its managers with computers and after-hours access in the fashion required by the authors argument.
Second, the author assumes that Apex and other companies are sufficiently5 similar to warrant a conclusion based on an analogy between them. Even if we accept the view that Apexs increase in productivity was brought about by its policy of enabling its managers to work from home, differences between Apex and other companies could nullify this result. Lacking detailed6 information about Apex and the other companies in question it is difficult to assess the authors conclusion.
In conclusion, the authors argument is unconvincing. To strengthen the argument the author would have to provide additional evidence for the claim that Apexs decision to provide its managers with home computers and access to company resources was responsible for its increase in productivity. Furthermore, it would be necessary to show that Apex and other companies are sufficiently similar to justify7 the analogy between them.
相关文章推荐
