argument180 [5f] 有拍必回

5-fishUID: 2314532

题目：ARGUMENT180 - 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 five-hundred-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 costs only $500 per employee-a small price to pay when you consider the benefits to Acme. Included in this fee is a three-week seminar in Spruce City and a lifelong subscription to the Easy Read newsletter. Clearly, Acme would benefit greatly by requiring all of our employees to take the Easy Read course."
字数：399          用时：0:30:00          日期：2007-11-6

The arguer concludes that Acme would benefit greatly by requiring all employees to take the Easy Read course. To support the conclusion the arguer cites two successful cases and the policy of Easy Read Company. However, the conclusion is groundless for the limited sample in reading course and incomplete comparison in the course policy.

At first, the arguer fails to illustrate the read effect of Easy Read course. The only evidence we can get is two successful cases. However, such limited sample can not support that two employees success derive much benefit from taking the course. It is entirely that the man who can read a five-hundred-page report in two hours cannot understand the whole passage thoroughly. Further, although he really good at reading, there is no information to show the relationship between his reading ability and training course. Perhaps he has much talent in reading. The fact that another graduate rose from an assistant manager to vice president is unwarranted also. Without the detailed analysis on his work and his performance, one cannot conclude that reading skill is the key point to promote and Easy Read provides the powerful skill to the employees.

Second, the arguer cite: the fast one can read, the more information one can absorb in a single workday is unreasonable. There are many objective examples. The cognitive ability of man depends on many factors. Maybe some one can skim the several books one day, but can not get the meaningful knowledge. On the contrary, the carefully consideration and detailed analysis many enhance one's knowledge greatly.

Although Easy Read has the great positive effect on people's reading skill, one can not confirm that the training fee is reasonable. In absence of comparison between other training company and the cost analysis, three week seminar and a life long subscription are meaningless, because may be there are other companies can provides much service to the students and order the fewer fees.

Finally, the suggestion that all employees should take the reading training is groundless. Different man in different department has the various reading skill requirement. It is ridiculous to send the physical worker to this course.

In sum, the conclusion is groundless for the incomplete information and unscientific reasoning process. To strengthen it, the arguer should provide more information to demonstrate the effect of the training course and the analysis on overall reading skill training companies.

liyue24UID: 2350787

The arguer concludes that Acme would benefit greatly by requiring all employees to take the Easy Read course. To support the conclusion the arguer cites two successful cases and the policy of Easy Read Company. However, the conclusion is groundless for the limited sample in reading course and incomplete comparison in the course policy.

At first, the arguer fails to illustrate the read effect of Easy Read course. The only evidence we can get is two successful cases. However, such limited sample can not support that two employees success derive much benefit from taking the course. It is entirely that the man who can read a five-hundred-page report in two hours cannot understand the whole passage thoroughly. Further, although he (is) really good at reading, there is no information to show the relationship between his reading ability and training course. Perhaps he has much talent in reading.(个人觉得这句稍微有点歪...原文说了这个老兄是上了课了才能这么短时间读这么多的，也就是说，没上课的时候不行，上了就行了。所以，建议不攻击这个地方。他读的快不见得都能理解，这样就可以了。也可以说读的快都忘了之类的...或是把下面那个火箭升职的再多说两句也可以。) The fact that another graduate rose from an assistant manager to vice president is unwarranted also. Without the detailed analysis on his work and his performance, one(这个one...指代不是很明确...不过这样用似乎也没啥问题...discuss，呵呵...) cannot conclude that reading skill is the key point to promote and Easy Read provides the powerful skill to the employees(employee，单数。这句说的好！清楚的说明了easy read和升职一点关系没有！作者的逻辑推理是错的。).

Second, the arguer cite: the fast one can read, the more information one can absorb in a single workday is unreasonable. There are many objective examples. The cognitive ability of man( a man/men ) depends on many factors. Maybe some one can skim the several books one day, but can not get the meaningful knowledge. On the contrary, the carefully consideration and detailed analysis many enhance one's knowledge greatly.

Although (这里是用although好还是用even好？...感觉上是一个让步，而althought似乎有转折的意味在里面，如果是我，我可能会用though) Easy Read has the great positive effect on people's reading skill, one can not confirm that the training fee is reasonable. In absence of comparison between other training company and the cost analysis, three week seminar and a life long subscription are meaningless, because may be there are other companies can provides much service (provide much more services) to the students and order the (不用the，只是比较级，不是最高级) fewer fees.

Finally, the suggestion that all employees should take the reading training is groundless. Different man in different department has the various reading skill requirement. It is ridiculous to send the physical worker to this course.

In sum, the conclusion is groundless for the incomplete information and unscientific(??...换个别的词吧...又不是什么科学迷信之类的...) reasoning process. To strengthen it, the arguer should provide more information to demonstrate the effect of the training course and the analysis on overall reading skill training companies.

My 2 cents.  :)

seafish0426UID: 2407075

The arguer concludes that Acme would benefit greatly by requiring all employees to take the Easy Read course. To support the conclusion the arguer cites two successful cases and the policy of Easy Read Company. However, the conclusion is groundless for the limited sample in reading course and incomplete comparison in the course policy.

At first, the arguer fails to illustrate the read effect of Easy Read course. The only evidence we can get is two successful cases. However, such limited samples can not support that two employees success(successfully) derive much benefit from taking the course. It is entirely possible that the man who can read a five-hundred-page report in two hours cannot understand the whole passage thoroughly.（这里和下面的假设重复） Further, although he really good at reading, there is no information to show the relationship between his reading ability and training course. Perhaps he has much talent in reading.(我觉得这里假设他本来就具有良好的阅读能力，参加了培训后提高不大比较合情理，直接说没有关系有点生硬) The fact that another graduate rose from an assistant manager to vice president is unwarranted also（either比较好吧，also一般好像不用于句末？）. Without the detailed analysis on his work and his performance, one cannot conclude that reading skill is the key point to promote and Easy Read provides the powerful skill to the employees.

Second, as the arguer cites: the fast one can read, the more information one can absorb in a single workday is unreasonable. There are many objective examples. The cognitive ability of man depends on many factors. Maybe some one can skim(skip?) the several books one day, but can not get the meaningful knowledge.(和上面的假设重复了) On the contrary, the carefully consideration and detailed analysis many（will） enhance one's knowledge greatly.

Although Easy Read has the greatly positive effects on people's reading skill, one can not confirm that the training fee is reasonable. In absence of comparison between(with) other training company and the cost analysis, three week seminar and a life long subscription are meaningless, because may be(maybe) there are other companies can provides(provide) much services to the students and order the(建议删掉) fewer fees.

Finally, the suggestion that all employees should take the reading training is groundless. Different man（people比较好吧） in different department has（have） the(建议删掉) various reading skill requirements. It is ridiculous to send the physical worker to this course.

In sum, the conclusion is groundless for the incomplete information and unscientific reasoning process. To strengthen it, the arguer should provide more information to demonstrate the effect of the training course and the analysis on overall reading skill training companies.

[ 本帖最后由 seafish0426 于 2007-11-7 00:03 编辑 ]