argument180 限时成功 求拍

碰碰UID: 2603633

"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

At first glance, it would seem, according to the logic of the argument, that Acme Publishing Company (AC) will benefit greatly by requiring all of the employers to take the Easy Read, would be a foregone conclusion. However, the reasoning behind the argument is flawed for several reasons: the author's assumption that the employees taking the Easy Read has greatly improved productivity is open to doubt; the author omits the possibility the training may be useless to Acme; and the author fail to provide information to support that all employees of Acme need to take the training.

The author's assumption that the employees taking the training have improved productivity is specious. The author only takes two employees, the number of whom is too small to represent the overall employees taking the training, to support him. Perhaps other employees' productivity has not improved; even worse, taking the three-week seminar will require the employees to take a three- weeks excuse, which will serious affect the normal jobs of the employees. Besides, there may be other factors that explain the achievements of two employees. Perhaps, their abilities have already been very outstanding. Without the training one of them still can read a five-hundred-page report in only two hours; while the other still can rise to vice president. In sum, the author should provide more details of the other employees taking the training.

The author fail to guarantee other companies' success will apply to Acme. After all they are different companies and belong to different fields. Perhaps the training will not succeed in Acme for its disparities from other companies, such as the company size, the employees' jobs and the education background of employees. For example, maybe the employees of Acme are graduating from those famous universities, and they already have outstanding reading speeds, which do not have to be improved any more. Without considering the dissimilarities between these companies, the author can not assert Acme’s employees need the training.

Even assuming the employees of Acme have the need to improve their reading speed, the author's proposal that all employees take the training does not make sense. Common sense tells us that a company's employees have various jobs, many of which do not need the employees to read. For example, the company may have cleaners, whose jobs are just to do the cleaning. If require these cleaners to take the training, at the expense of $500 per person, would it not a waste of money?

Improving the productivity is of great importance to the company; however, the personnel director of Acme should not be hasty to give his proposal. To convince the readers to accept his conclusion, the author has much work to do: he should find if the training really can improve productivity; he should provide data to show whether Acme's employees need to take it and which employees need and which need not the training