argument 113,望拍出粑粑
本帖最后由 tingtang 于 2012-2-16 03:26 编辑113) The following is a recommendation from the personnel director to the president of Acme Publishing Company.
Many other companies have recently stated that having their employees take the Easy Read Speed-Reading Course has greatly improved productivity. One graduate of the course was able to read a 500-page report in only two hours; another graduate rose from an assistant manager to vice president of the company in under a year. Obviously, the faster you can read, the more information you can absorb in a single workday. Moreover, Easy Read would cost Acme only $500 per employee—a small price to pay when you consider the benefits. Included in this fee is a three-week seminar in Spruce City and a lifelong subscription to the Easy Read newsletter. Clearly, to improve productivity, Acme should require all of our employees to take the Easy Read course.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the advice and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the advice.
In this argument, the arguer claim that Acme should require all of their employee to take the easy read course. To justify the advise, the arguer point that many companies employees were greatly improved productivity after take the easy read speed-reading course. In addition the arguer reasons that the cost of the course not to much but can be payed back unexpected to Acme in the long run. This argument appears reasonable and rational in the first glance, however, when considering the process of reasoning, it concludes critical fallacy.
First of all, the arguer fails to provide persuasive evidence to demonstrate that employee in many other companies have improved their productivity after being trained in the Easy Read course. Question should be asked that ：Dose improvement of ability of only two graduates in the other companies show the excellent training effect of Easy Reading. What about the other graduates? Could all of the employees in the Acme improve their ability in reading. Does the enhanced reading celerity means the more information he could absorbing? If all of just a part of the answers are negative or just in suspect, the effect of Easy Reading may not very good.
In addition, even if training effect of the Easy Read is excellent, is it proper for all stuff of Acme to train? The arguer have not made a conspicuous comparison of Acme with many other companies mentioned in the argument. If this companies are totally different from Acme, the training may provide effect not so obvious. And if Acme is top company in publishing field owns excellent stuff and those employees’ abilities in reading are superior than some same kind companies, it would be not proper for employee to take course. Therefore, more statistics should be displayed in the argument for assuring the effect of training.
What’s more, even if Easy Reading works well, is it necessary for Acme to require all the clerks to take the course? If not all of the employees in Acme need to read and absorb lots of information, training all of the stuff are wasting money. And if some employees intend to leave Acme in the immediate future, it would not bring benefits to Acme. It will be better that. It will be better that the proper proportion or the list of clerks displayed to save and proper use sources of Acme.
To sum up, although the reasoning behind advises that all of our employees should take Easy Read course seems logical, his or her advice mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning. In order to improve the quality of recommendation, more statistics of enhancement in absorbing the information and effect of working should be expounded.
Thanks advance..
页:
[1]