GMAT考试写作指导：Argument范文二一

会计考友

81.        This company memorandum suggests that, in lieu of adopting an official code of
ethics, the company should conduct a publicity campaign that stresses the importance of
promoting certain societal interests. The reason for the suggestion is that an official
code of ethics might harm the company in the public eye because a competing company
received unfavorable publicity for violating its own ethics code. This argument is
unconvincing, since it depends on several unwarranted assumptions as well as arguing
against its own conclusion.
      First of all, the author unfairly assumes that the two companies are sufficiently
similar to ensure the same consequences of adopting an ethics code for this company as
1 h  ?+ ]6 N7 N8 j7 _for its competitor. The competitor may have adopted an entirely different code from the
one this company might adopt—perhaps with unrealistic standards not embraced by any
3 J) j* F0 _0 d* j9 i% kother companies. Perhaps the competitor's violation was extremely egregious,
amounting to an aberration among businesses of its type; or perhaps one notorious
* L8 X+ R5 f6 [' H+ zexecutive is solely responsible for the competitor's violation. Any of these scenarios, if
true, would show that the two companies are dissimilar in ways relevant to the
likelihood that this company will experience similar violations and similar publicity if it
: J: W( H( u0 |$ radopts any ethics code.
. ]; |& l8 z9 Z; [; `( P      Secondly, the author unfairly assumes that the competitor was damaged by its
3 g; H# _3 a2 _4 F' |7 Ycode violation and the resulting publicity more than it would have been had it not
* j0 }3 ?0 E/ b3 ~6 `) Wviolated its code. Just as likely, however, the violation was necessary to ensure a certain
" s4 j/ ]) b. v2 R& j* klevel of profitability or to protect other important interests. Without knowing the extent
* E& g9 m' x$ C  P$ m% R1 @$ M, kand nature of the damage resulting from the bad publicity or the reason for the violation,
we cannot accept the author's conclusion.
  d! m& ?- Y1 o. r3 [! }4 D      Thirdly, the author's proposal is inconsistent with the author's conclusion about
the consequences of adopting an ethics code. The author suggests that, instead of
% y+ u- Q- }0 d& iadopting an ethics code, this company should stress "the importance of protecting the
/ b8 ?) U* R( ]4 w) I, j. denvironment and assisting charitable organizations." This proposal is tantamount to
* r8 d) j5 ~) l* [! |adopting an ethics code. In this sense, the author suggests going against his own advice
that the company should not adopt such a code.
- }! V, t" }8 |( U/ f      in conclusion, differences between this company and its competitor may
! j- S" [$ p4 P) M: ], Xundermine the author's conclusion that this company should not adopt an ethics code.
. s0 @& j. P$ y( i! STo better evaluate the argument, we need more information about the nature of the
! M' I+ {! Q# fcompetitor's ethics code and about the nature and extent of the violation. To strengthen
5 O* E5 R) o- V/ a" H- p/ Sthe argument, the author must accord his advice with his conclusion that the company
* X! C8 o# I+ D9 v' i* K) G' |should not adopt an ethics code.