ISSUE180[5-F小组]

lestouUID: 2260126

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 372          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-11-8 15:41:47

The argument is well presented, but not thoroughly well reasoned. The arguer tends to prove that Acme would benefit greatly by requiring all their employees to take the Easy Read course. To substantiate this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that many other companies which have recently send their employees to take the E course has greatly improved their productivity, and  that one graduate of the course was able to read a five-hundred-page report in only two hours while another rose form an assistant manager to vice president within a year. In addition, specifically, E course costs only &500 per employee, a small price to pay when considers the benefits it brings about to Acme. At first glance, this argument seems very specific and convincing. A careful examination of it, however, would reveal how groundless it is.

In the first place, which is also the threshold problem, this argument is based on a gratuitous prerequisite that the successful training experience from other companies will automatically suitable to the case of Acme, and improve the productivity of it. As we know, Acme is a publishing company, but it doesn't necessary follow that higher quality of reading of employees can raise the productivity of it. Perhaps most employees in Acme only engaged in job that only require one's good physical condition, and a good reader in Acme can bare nothing but futileness.

In the second place, the example cited as evidence in this argument are insufficient to justify that the E course does effectively improve employees' information absorbing ability . The arguer failed to consider some other possibility in these particular two cases. Such alternative include the fact that these two graduates are elite before they took this course, and perhaps they are already good at reading before they take part in the E course.  Specifically, to say one graduate rose form an assistant manager to vice president of the company, chances are that it actually has nothing to do with this course. No one could seriously believe that to be a vice president of any company only requires the ability of reading and absorbing knowledge. Though it is irresponsible to send every employees to take this reading course as arguer mentioned above, it will beneficial to give some of them enough freedom to take this course un-compulsorily, which will not only help accelerate their ability of reading, but also improve the productivity of Acme.

In the third place, even if E course does effectively increased employees' ability of getting information, there's still a problem of the high costs. As the arguer stated in the analysis, that E course will costs $500 per employee, relatively speaking may be is not too much, however, the arguer failed to consider the overall population of Acme, if the population of Acme is numerable, then $500 per employee added up will be a great sum of dollars which will not a piece of cake to any company.

Overall, the reasoning behind requiring all employees of Acme to take the E course seems logical as presented above, since the arguer is acting in his good intention and want to improve the productivity of his company. However before any decisions are made about sending all Acme's employees to take the E course, officious and decision makers of Acme should re-evaluate the actual benefit again that this training may bring about.  

helpmebabyUID: 2372995

The argument is well presented, but not thoroughly well(去掉) reasoned. The arguer tends to prove that Acme would benefit greatly by requiring all their employees to take the Easy Read course. To substantiate this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that many other companies which have recently send their employees to take the E course has greatly improved their (employee's, 这里主语是companies吧) productivity, and  that one graduate of the course was able to read a five-hundred-page report in only two hours while another rose form （from） an assistant manager to vice president within a year. In addition, specifically, E course costs only &500 per employee, a small price to pay when considers the benefits it brings about to Acme. At first glance, this argument seems very specific and convincing. A careful examination of it, however, would reveal how groundless it is.

In the first place, which is also the threshold problem, this argument is based on a gratuitous prerequisite that the successful training experience from other companies will automatically suitable to the case of Acme, and improve the productivity of it. As we know, Acme is a publishing company, but it doesn't necessary follow that higher quality of reading of employees can raise the productivity of it.(这句读不通，是想说？) Perhaps most employees in Acme only engaged in job（s）that only require one's （requiring）good physical condition, and a good reader in Acme can bare nothing but futileness.

In the second place, the example cited as evidence in this argument are insufficient to justify that the E course does effectively improve employees' information absorbing ability . The arguer failed to consider some other possibility (possibilities) in these particular two (particular) cases. Such alternative include the fact that these two graduates are elite before they took this course, and perhaps they are already good at reading before they take part in the E course.  Specifically, to say one graduate rose form an assistant manager to vice president of the company, chances are that it actually has nothing to do with this course. No one could seriously believe that to be (being) a vice president of any company only requires the ability of reading and absorbing knowledge. Though it is irresponsible to send every employees to take this reading course as arguer mentioned above, it will beneficial to give some of them enough freedom to take this course un-compulsorily, which will not only help accelerate their ability of reading, but also improve the productivity of Acme.

In the third place, even if E course does effectively increased employees' ability of getting information, there's still a problem of the high costs. As the arguer stated in the analysis, that E course will costs $500 per employee, relatively speaking may be is not too much, however, the arguer failed to consider the overall population of Acme, if the population of Acme is numerable, then $500 per employee added up will be a great sum of dollars which will not a piece of cake to any company.

Overall, the reasoning behind requiring all employees of Acme to take the E course seems logical as presented above, since the arguer is acting in his good intention and want to improve the productivity of his company. However before any decisions are made about sending all Acme's employees to take the E course, officious and decision makers of Acme should re-evaluate the actual benefit again that this training may bring about.

总体结构不错，个人认为第二段和第三段的内容可以调换一下。结尾还蛮新颖的，一般人都会重复前面几段的内容。另外，楼主的标题应该是argument180吧 ：）

lestouUID: 2260126

真是辛苦了,

而且也让我找到了个大问题, engaged in job（s）that only require one's （requiring）good physical condition,我总习惯用动词做定语,对现在分词做定语总不太习惯.

lestouUID: 2260126

另外对于2,3段对调的建议,我认为不可以
因为出现逻辑错误,首先要考虑的应该是这个课程对于别的公司虽然有用,但对ACME是否有用.也就是开课必要性的问题, 然后才是这个课程是否能真的提高员工们的阅读能力.如果课程压根没用,即使能力提高了也是惘然的.