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. 这篇GRE作文首先在字数高达599words, GRE考试虽然没有对写作提出明确的字数要求,但其评分时偏好字数更多的文章却也是不争的事实。

  2. 这篇文章在结构上采取了标准的五段式写法,首段、末端,中间三段,整体结构没有出现头重脚轻的问题,文章平衡性极佳。

  3. 整篇文章在词句运用上极为出彩,没有出现陈词滥调、用词重复或堆砌句子的问题。





  1. 首先,大家需要对范文的来源进行筛选和甄别。市面上打着高分满分GRE范文幌子的资料很多,但其中有不少是滥竽充数之辈,所选用的文章大多本身质量低劣根本称不上范文。为了避免学习到这些假货反而受到不良影响,大家首先需要找到真正高品质的范文资源。一般来说,官方或是权威机构出品的资料里,包含的范文质量较高,比如官方出品的OG指南中,涉及写作部分就有许多真正意义上的高分范文。另外诸如曼哈顿和MAGOOSH之类国外权威考试机构的复习资料中,也有不少优质范文。另外,许多权威教学机构都有自己的在线工具和模考软件,比如上面提到的两家机构,还有官方模考软件PP2,在作文部分都会配置一到两篇高分范文给大家参考,这些文章也是极好的。

  2. 其次,范文中的好词妙句大家要消化改写后再使用。就如同在上文真题实例分析中所说,再好的句子,也绝对没有直接拿来就用的道理,一方面有雷同风险,另一方面每个人的语言用词习惯都有所不同,强行记忆和自己习惯不符的句子很容易出现记忆混淆,背诵错误的问题。所以,考生如果看到一些比较优秀的句子,那么不妨在不影响其质量的情况下,根据自身的写作风格稍作一些加工调整,消化吸收后再拿出来用到自己的文章中。

  3. 再次,面对优秀范文,切忌整篇文章死记硬背。一个原因上面说过,容易被判雷同,另一个原因则是对记忆力消耗太大,每个人的记忆力都是有限的,而GRE作文题目又数量众多,考生如果看到一篇好文章就想要整个背下来,那么无论记性多好都会是件耗时费力的辛苦活,付出和回报完全不成比例。正确做法是学习这些文章的写作思路。GRE作文Argument是驳论文,要求找漏洞发现逻辑问题,这是需要一定技巧的,哪些是主要漏洞,如何展开驳论的层次层层递进,大家都可以通过范文来进行学习,这也是范文真正的价值所在。

  4. 最后,范文中常会使用到一些不错的素材。素材本身可能并不出奇,但恰到好处的使用却能够为整篇文章增光添彩。考生不要迷信高分范文里的素材,简单粗暴地直接背素材,正确做法是学习能够让素材具备说服力的使用方法,比如哪些素材用在什么类型的题目,证明哪些观点时才能发挥最大作用。学会这种素材和题目的搭配才是核心关键。