argument180 有拍必回！指教几句也好~

plukaUID: 2721764

几天没有写，手生，严重超时。

180.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."

=======449字=======
In this argument, the author cited several enhancement in some companies as evidance for the effecacy of Easy Read training, and hance deduced that Acme could benefit by adopting the training for all its employees. Nevertheless, several false deduction and comparision render his proposal unwarrented.

First, the rising productivity of companies whose employees have participated in the training may suggest, but insufficiently prove, that the training is primary factor for the enhancement. Given little information, we can hardly rule out other parameters that works. Perhaps, the increase was due to the betterment in management, or the reform of processing method, or the adoption of new machines. Hence the arbitary judgment on the significant contribution of the training fails to be substantiated.

Second, the author’s deduction that faster speed of reading leads to more knowledge absorbed in working is far from verified. Neither of the two example he cites makes up to be strong enough evidence for this deduction. Though one graduate could read a long passage within short time, it is possible that he was simply scanning without understanding or memerizing any meaningful contents. Though one assistant manager was promoted after taking the course, it is possible that rather than reading ability, he manifested other outstanding strength such as professional skills and interpersonal crafts, which contribute to his promotoin. No direct proof is given to support that they actually gain more knowledge through reading faster and the knowledge actually benefits. Even if the influence of the training was true and obvious in the two cases, the author fails to prove that the two would be ensured as representative enough to reflect the general.

Third, even though, as the author claims, the training course exhibits merits in some cases, it would still be too hasty to decide that Acme needs this course for all employees. Little information, such as the target field of cooperation and their literate degree of employees, of companies that participated and benefited is given, rendering the comparison between them and Acme incomplete. Perhaps, those benefited companies held a majority share of workers with low level of reading ability, while as a publish company, Acme’s employees generally had been sufficiently literate that the training course might not improve them much. Besides, to claim that all workers need training is too inaccurate and impractical: higher reading ability for some positions, such as dustman, is obviously of no use.

In sum, the author posits his proposal on flawed deduction and incomplete comparison from inadequate information. To amend the conclusion, he may as well carry out more specified survey that can reflect the general situation and make the decision most suitable for his own company. 

不求拍全文，看了之后有什么意见或想法请指教~谢谢~~！