Argument180 请大家帮忙看看吧...

jackey737UID: 149062

－－－－题目
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."

－－－翻译
很多其他公司最近指出他们的员工参加了Easy Read的速读课程之后生产效率显著提高。这个课程的一名毕业生能够在两个小时之内读完长达500页的报告，另一名毕业生在一年内从助理经理上升到了副总裁。显然，你的阅读速度越快，在一天之内所能吸收的信息就越多。而且，Easy Read的学费只有每人500元，当考虑到它给Acme带来的效益的时候这就是个小数目。这个费用包括在Spruce City举行的为期三周的研讨会和Easy Read新闻刊物的终生赠阅。显然，Acme通过要求所有员工参加Easy Read的课程将会极大地受益。

－－－正文
   In this argument, on the basis of  the survey which shows the situation of the employees who have taken the Easy Read Speed-Reading Course in other companies, through comparative study, the arguer claims that Acme would benefit greatly by requiring all of their employees to take the Easy Reading course. Yet this seemingly well-reasoned argument could not blind us the fact that the arguer suffers from several logical flaws.

Fist of all, the arguer uses the case study data as a role source of evidence, so that the results seems to be unreliable. It seems, in all possibility, that the two employees are not accurately representative of all the employees who took the course. On the one hand, with this sampling bias, the survey will undoubtedly bypass the employees who did not take the course and probably still performance well. Again, without knowing the total amount of graduates, it is also possible that the two cases are only a small part of all the whole graduates. On the other hand, the arguer dose not provide any information to confirm us that the bias found in the sample procedure would not seriously affect the results of the survey in any way that is critical. Therefore, the results could not substantially support the contention.

  Secondly, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the reading course and the employees' improvement. The arguer ignores other actually causes of the productivity improvement. For example, it is possible that it is the advanced management that benefits the productivity. It is equally possible that the high-tech machines directly increase the productivity. Including the factors, other factors such as the employees' moral, global economy situation and etc, could also contribute to the productivity. Failing to rule out these factors, the arguer could not claim that the course improves the graduates' performances。

Last but not least, the arguer presents a false analogy, since the comparability between Acme and other companies has been presumptuously founded. It is quite possible that Acme's regulation is totally different from other companies, so that it is doubtful that whether the course would be effective to Acme's employees. To make matters worse, the explanation to make sure that this analogy could not undermine the contention is inadvertently omitted. As a result, without taking into account these factors, the arguer could not assert that all of their employees should take the Easy Reading course.

In sum, the arguer fails to corroborate the conclusion, with substantial evidences. Lest more and more loopholes are revealed, the arguer should modify the sample of the survey, and take into account all dimensions discussed in the above analysis.


word 441

jackey737UID: 149062

自己顶一下！！！
嘻嘻...

jackey737UID: 149062

捞一下,,,
拜托看看嘛，，，
一句话也好啊！！！

蓝清UID: 158106

No.1 Argument180 ...
－－－－题目
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."

－－－翻译
很多其他公司最近指出他们的员工参加了Easy Read的速读课程之后生产效率显著提高。这个课程的一名毕业生能够在两个小时之内读完长达500页的报告，另一名毕业生在一年内从助理经理上升到了副总裁。显然，你的阅读速度越快，在一天之内所能吸收的信息就越多。而且，Easy Read的学费只有每人500元，当考虑到它给Acme带来的效益的时候这就是个小数目。这个费用包括在Spruce City举行的为期三周的研讨会和Easy Read新闻刊物的终生赠阅。显然，Acme通过要求所有员工参加Easy Read的课程将会极大地受益。

－－－正文
In this argument, on the basis of the survey which shows the situation of the employees who have taken the Easy Read Speed-Reading Course in other companies, through comparative study原文没有对比，这因该是一个攻击点, the arguer claims that Acme would benefit greatly by requiring all of their employees to take the Easy Reading course. Yet this seemingly well-reasoned argument could not blind us the fact that the arguer suffers from several logical flaws.

Fist of all, the arguer uses the case study data as a role source of evidence, so that the results seems to be unreliable. It seems, in all possibility, that the two employees are not accurately representative of all the employees who took the course. On the one hand, with this sampling bias, the survey will undoubtedly bypass the employees who did not take the course and probably still performance well. Again, without knowing the total amount of graduates, it is also possible that the two cases are only a small part of all the whole graduates. On the other hand, the arguer dose not provide any information to confirm us that the bias found in the sample procedure would not seriously affect the results of the survey in any way that is critical. Therefore, the results could not substantially support the contention.
in fact with no information of the performance of the two graduates before taking such a course, it is groundless to say that they have improved significantly from it.

Secondly, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the reading course and the employees' improvement. The arguer ignores other actually causes of the productivity improvement. For example, it is possible that it is the advanced management that benefits the productivity. It is equally possible that the high-tech machines directly increase the productivity. Including the factors, other factors such as the employees' moral, global economy situation and etc, could also contribute to the productivity. Failing to rule out these factors, the arguer could not claim that the course improves the graduates' performances。其实，正文的第一段可以对其他公司的station 进行攻击：首先上课的人不一定有提高，因为没有横向和纵向的对比， 而且列举的这两个人很难保证其代表性；其次，上这门课可以提高productivity 更是无从说起；最后上课与效率的提高是否是因果关系，或者只是一种伴随关系

Last but not least, the arguer presents a false analogy, since the comparability between Acme and other companies has been presumptuously founded. It is quite possible that Acme's regulation is totally different from other companies, so that it is doubtful that whether the course would be effective to Acme's employees.很有可能这些公司与Acme 的性质不同，对员工的具体工作的能力要求也就不同，出版公司并不要求每个员工的阅读速度都很高的 To make matters worse, the explanation to make sure that this analogy could not undermine the contention is inadvertently omitted. As a result, without taking into account these factors, the arguer could not assert that all of their employees should take the Easy Reading course.

即使是上这个课就可以提高员工的工作效率，也不能说就值得去，很有可能投入比收益要高很多，而且也有可能还有其他的相类似的课比这门课更划算。

In sum, the arguer fails to corroborate the conclusion, with substantial evidences. Lest more and more loopholes are revealed, the arguer should modify the sample of the survey, and take into account all dimensions discussed in the above analysis.


word 441

我写的作文也不多， 只能提出自己的一点思路，希望能有点参考价值。
写作文的时候要注意格式， 各段之间应该空一行，这与我们平时的考试不一样。

jackey737UID: 149062

^_^ 多谢多谢

我正愁没有说的呢...