ARGUMENT180 [spining up]第二天

veinardUID: 2195006

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: 450           DATE: 2006-8-16

In this argument, the president of Acme Publishing Company claims that Acme would benefit greatly by requiring all of their employees to tale the Easy Read, a Speed-Reading Course. To support his advice, the arguer points out that many other companied have greatly improved productivity because they have let their employees take this course. The president also cites the costs of the course to prove the pay can offset by it benefits. However, through scrutiny we can find that the argument suffers several logical flaws which prevent it from convincing.

To begin with, the arguer fails to prove that the improved productivity is due to the speed-reading course. Without the particular information of the course and the situation of productivity, it is entirely possible that the other factors are the truly reasons for the increased productivity. These factors include the developed management, improved qualities of employees and better environment of work. Without ruling these possibilities, the arguer cannot convince us that the speed-reading course and the improved productivity have a cause-and-effect relationship.

Second, even if the course of Easy Read can truly improve that lever of productivity, no evidence can prove that Acme can also benefit from the course. The differences between the employees of the companies which open the course and Acme may be significant. Acme is a publishing company, and the character of it requires its employees to have a high lever of reading, this is the basic requirement for them. In the other word, in absence of the kind of the cited companies, I cannot convince that the course can help the Acme to gain the same effects. The key point to improving the productivity of Acme may not be the reading speed, but other aspects of the company.

Third, the arguer does not account for why the fee of Easy Read can offset by the benefits of it. $500 is not so much for training one employee, but if the number of the employees is large, the total cost of the courses is enormous. Perhaps the costs have overcome earning of the company and cannot afford by its budgets. Without the information of the number of employees' number, it is too hasty for the arguer to conclude that the fee of the course is small compared with the benefits to the company.

In sum, this argument is untenable as it stands. To strengthen it, the president of Acme should provide more information of the Easy Read courses and the situation of the cited companies. Moreover, the lever of the reading of the employees of Acme should also be offered. Finally, to better assess this argument, I need to know the number and the budgets of Acme.

jinzhemingUID: 2224073

In this argument, the president of Acme Publishing Company claims that Acme would benefit greatly by requiring all of their employees to tale the Easy Read, a Speed-Reading Course. To support his advice, the arguer points out that many other companied have greatly improved productivity because they have let their employees take this course. The president also cites the costs of the course to prove the pay can offset by it benefits. However, through scrutiny we can find that the argument suffers several logical flaws which prevent it from convincing.

To begin with, the arguer fails to prove that the improved productivity is due to the speed-reading course. Without the particular information of the course and the situation of productivity, it is entirely possible that the other factors are the truly reasons for the increased productivity. These factors include the developed management, improved qualities of employees and better environment of work. Without ruling //out// these possibilities, the arguer cannot convince us that the speed-reading course and the improved productivity have a cause-and-effect relationship.

Second, even if the course of Easy Read can truly improve that lever of productivity, no evidence can prove that Acme can also benefit from the course. The differences between the employees of the companies which open the course and Acme may be significant. Acme is a publishing company, and the character of it(是否可以替换成which) requires its employees to have a high lever of reading,// and // this is the basic requirement for them. In the other word//in other word//, in absence of the kind of the cited companies, I cannot convince //I am not convinced// that the course can help the Acme to gain the same effects. The key point to improving the productivity of Acme may not be the reading speed, but other aspects of the company.

Third, the arguer does not account for why the fee of Easy Read can offset//be offset ?// by the benefits of it. $500 is not so much for training one employee, but if the number of the employees is large, the total cost of the courses is enormous. Perhaps the costs have overcome //surpassed// earning //earnings?// of the company and cannot afford by its budgets. Without the information of the number of employees' number, it is too hasty for the arguer to conclude that the fee of the course is small compared with the benefits to the company.

In sum, this argument is untenable as it stands. To strengthen it, the president of Acme should provide more information of the Easy Read courses and the situation of the cited companies. Moreover, the lever of the reading//the reading level ?// of the employees of Acme should also be offered. Finally, to better assess this argument, I need to know the number and the budgets of Acme
lever-level
  很高兴又来修改你的文章! 谢谢你昨天的修改。
有些地方是我的想法，如果觉得有问题，很高兴得到指正。:)

jinzhemingUID: 2224073

请教一下A 的5分和6分差别是否较大？

In the argument, the arguer concludes that Acme would benefit greatly by requiring all of his employees to take the Easy Read course. To support his conclusion, the arguer points out that many employees, especially two graduates, in other companies have greatly improved productivity. In addition, the arguer reasons the benefits of reading fast and the cost of training is very worthwhile. However, the argument is flawed in several major aspects.

Firstly, the example of the graduates is intended to support the conclusion. But it is vague and oversimplified. It is possible that the five-hundred-paper report has many graphic charts describing the corresponding data. If this is the case, the time spent on reading the report may be very short. It is also possible that the company where another graduate has been promoted so quickly is very small, so the chance of promotion is big.

Secondly, the arguer provides no evidence to support the conclusion that all employees in his company will benefit greatly. The example of two graduates, while suggestive of the wonderful effect of training course, is insufficient to warrant the truth because there is no reason to believe that the performance of the two graduates is representative of those of all employees. It is possible that the new employees are not clever enough at learning and need a period of time to acquire not only the knowledge from books but also the practical knowledge critical for improving the productivity.It is also possible that the old employees have been very skilled at the work and it is a waste of time and money for them to take the course.

Thirdly, the claim that more information can be absorbed when reading fast is not convincing. It is possible that although the speed of reading is fast, people tend to forget what they have read just before as a large amount of information is likely to cause confusion between the relevant ideas and it is not so much absorbing the information than reading stories.

Finally, the cost of training course seems, at first glance , to be worthwhile considering its benefits and the lifelong subscription to the newsletter. However, the argument provides no information about the cost of other similar courses. If other courses offer not only these benefits, but also the practical training opportunities for the employees at the same fee, then the arguer's recommendation amounts to a poor advice.

In sum, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands. More analyses and information are needed to make the conclusion creditable.

veinardUID: 2195006

In the argument, the arguer concludes that Acme would benefit greatly by requiring all of his employees to take the Easy Read course. To support his conclusion, the arguer points out that many employees, especially two graduates, in other companies have greatly improved productivity. In addition, the arguer reasons the benefits of reading fast and the cost of training is very worthwhile. However, the argument is flawed in several major aspects.

Firstly, the example of the graduates is intended to support the conclusion. But it is vague and oversimplified. It is possible that the five-hundred-paper report has many graphic charts describing the corresponding data. If this is the case, the time spent on reading the report may be very short. It is also possible that the company where another graduate has been promoted so quickly is （very small ）a small company, so the chance of promotion is big.

Secondly, the arguer provides no evidence to support the conclusion that all employees in his company will benefit greatly. The example of two graduates, while suggestive of the wonderful effect of training course, is insufficient to warrant the truth because there is no reason to believe that the performance of the two graduates is representative of those of all employees. It is possible that the new employees are （not clever enough 这条没有说服力）at learning and need a period of time to acquire not only the knowledge from books but also the practical knowledge critical for improving the productivity.It is also possible that the old employees have been very skilled at the work and it is a waste of time and money for them to take the course.

Thirdly, the claim that more information can be absorbed when reading fast is not convincing. It is possible that although the speed of reading is fast, people tend to forget what they have read just before as a large amount of information is likely to cause confusion between the relevant ideas and it is not so much absorbing the information than reading stories.

Finally, the cost of training course seems, at first glance , to be worthwhile considering its benefits and the lifelong subscription to the newsletter. However, the argument provides no information about the cost of other similar courses. If other courses offer not only these benefits, but also the practical training opportunities for the employees at the same fee, then the arguer's recommendation amounts to a poor advice.

In sum, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands. More analyses and information are needed to make the conclusion creditable. 扩充一下
谢谢你的修改：〉
关于5分和6分的区别，我想主要在语言，即词汇/句式上吧

[ 本帖最后由 veinard 于 2006-8-16 23:46 编辑 ]