argument180 请猛拍， 必回拍

staroceanUID: 2271193

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."

作者以两个证据支撑这个结论但是都不可靠
1．           两个人。。。没说是不是读的快吸收的就快，就算真的读的快获取信息量大，也可能也不是导致这两个人成功的决定因素。就算是。。。导致了这两个人。。。也不一定是因为上了课，可能本身就好。另外两个人不能代表所有人。
2．           别的公司收益不代表我们一定收益。
   工作性质，员工本身的能力
3．           就算有用，是不是这个benefit deserve the cost?
尤其是三周的时间，所有员工。再有我们有没有这个钱也是一回事，这个钱是不是应该被用来做更值的事情？比如维修设备来提高产量，或者让员工参加专业课程提高专业知识和能力。总之没比较这些不能无端判定。

In this argument, the director attempt to convince us that Acme Publishing Company (APC) will benefit greatly once all of their employees to take the Easy Read course. This recommendation is based on the observation that two individuals did a excellent job after this course alone the fact that some companies improved the productivity with the help of the course. However, the evidence presented throughout the argument is vague and hence does not lend strong support to what the director claims.

The first unreliable evidence cited by the director is that one gradate could read really fast after the course, and another gradate rose from an assistant manager to vice president of the company less than a year. However, this two individuals’ case lend little strong support to the course’s effectiveness. First of all, the director fails to provide sufficient information to indicate that the graduates did absorb more information by fast reading, leaving it possible that they just read faster but were not able to think clearly throughout reading. Perhaps, they might not draw any conclusion about what they read—let alone gain more information. Moreover, even granted that the graduates were really good at reading, the argument rests in the further assumption that it is the key determinant that reading skill to the graduate’s promotion. It is possible that other advances contribute to this result, which may include, the outstanding organizing and leading capacity, the impressive communicating and corporation ability and the excellent professional acknowledge. It appears reasonable, therefore, these factor instead of reading skill lead to the promotion. Furthermore, even assuming the reading skill played an indispensable role to this result, this may not attribute to Easy Reading course at all.  To judge whether the course helped, we should compare the graduates’ reading speed before with it after the course. Yet, there is no such information. Then maybe the two individuals were all terrific readers before the course. Finally, I have to point out that only with two graduates information, it is necessary impossible to indicate the situation of graduates in general.

The second unreliable evidence is that many companies have recently stated that having their employees take the courses has greatly improved productivity. However, this evidence cannot substantiate the further inference that APC will benefits from it as well. What is the nature of the companies? Is it similar to APC? The director gives no answer. Then perhaps, the companies who benefited might be some information science company, whose productivity is tied up with reading ability, while APC’s employees do not need to read in their daily work at all. Meanwhile, how about the reading level of people before taking the course? If the APC’s employees already are good readers, they can hardly take any advantage from this course.

Even if the two cited evidence do indicate that APC will benefit from this course, I remain unconvinced that this benefits can actually overweight its costs. However, no assurance is provided in this letter. Given that the course takes three weeks, APC’s productivity will decline greatly during this period. And the amount of money will be a huge number to pay for all the employees’ courses. Will the benefits from this course cover all these costs? Can APC afford this time and money? Is there any other pressing problem should be solved with this money? And do they have other choice to increase productivity with lower cost? （因为最近觉得写充分不太费劲了，但是碍于字数和时间限制，我觉得比如这里只说到可能有其他更便宜的方法也提高产量就行了，用不用再说比如可以改进设备之类的呢？希望能给我一点建议，谢谢）Without considering and eliminating all these and other possible scenario, taking such course appears undeserving as the director recommends.


In conclusion, the director’s conclusion is not convincing as it stands. To bolster this recommendation, the author has to provide more evidence that the Easy Read course will work effective, especially to APC. Still before I accept the final conclusion, the director must present more facts concerning the benefits and costs of this action.
（另外，是不是这样干脆每段没有联接词好呢？还是就土土的用first second好呢？我个人拿不太准。）

siyuandingUID: 2154137

对不起，我来晚了！

In this argument, the director attempt to convince us that Acme Publishing Company (APC) will benefit greatly once all of their employees to take the Easy Read course. This recommendation is based on the observation that two individuals did a[an] excellent job [加just]after this course alone the fact that some companies improved the productivity with the help of the course. However, the evidence presented throughout the argument is vague and hence does not lend strong support to what the director claims.
[开头很漂亮，把题目的信息量都包括进去，而又很简洁，没有死板的重复题目，赞一下。
但我个人要提个理解题意的问题，我觉得两个individuals和companies是一个问题的两个层次吧，也就是说， individuals是从这些companies拿出来的典型，是用来支持companies效率提高，后者作为assumption来出现的，而前者作为evidence支撑着后者,这就导致body2主题句的麻烦]

The first unreliable evidence cited by the director is that one gradate could read really fast after the course, and another gradate rose from an assistant manager to vice president of the company less than a year. However, this two individuals’ case lend little strong[去strong] support to the course’s effectiveness. First of all, the director fails to provide sufficient information to indicate that the graduates did absorb more information by fast reading, leaving it possible that they just read faster but were not able to think clearly throughout reading. Perhaps, they might not draw any conclusion about what they read—let alone gain more information[any information, let alone draw any conclusion]. Moreover, even granted that the graduates were really good at reading, the argument rests in the further assumption that it is the key determinant that reading skill to the graduate’s promotion. It is possible that other advances[advantages] contribute to this result, which may include[限定谁？也无关痛痒的定语，显得多余], the outstanding organizing and leading capacity, the impressive communicating and corporation[cooperating] ability and the excellent professional acknowledge[knowledge 或 experience]. It appears reasonable, therefore, these factor instead of reading skill lead to the promotion. Furthermore, even assuming the reading skill played an indispensable role to this result, this may not attribute to Easy Reading course at all. [这个问题怎么放这里谈，应给方在那个read fast一起把，中间夹了个升职的，这种跳跃性思维让人难以接受，跟我一样，思维混乱了吧，呵呵] To judge whether the course helped[is helpful], we should compare the graduates’ reading speed before with it after the course[这样表达可以吗the subsequent reading speed with the initial one before the application of the course]. Yet, there is no such information. Then maybe the two individuals were all terrific[skillful] readers before the course. Finally, I have to point out that only with two graduates information, it is necessary impossible to indicate the situation of graduates in general.
[这一段太长了，显得和后面的段落很不相称，promotion完全可以另起一段，而且还避免了，逻辑条理混乱的局面，何乐不为？？你觉得不好衔接，可用nor does the arguer give any evidence to ...一样衔接的很好]

The second unreliable evidence is that many companies have recently stated that having their employees take the courses has greatly improved productivity. [unreliable 不好,特别是段首的主题句，给人的感觉是这段又要攻击company improve productivity了, 而你这段要驳斥的是不要经验借鉴，用 even assuming ...due to ...，出现这样的问题就是因为你没有将individuals 和companies 的问题划成两个层次，个人的好不是因为阅读，就算是，个人的好也不能导致公司的productive，可能另有的他因] However, this evidence cannot substantiate the further inference that APC will benefits from it as well. What is the nature of the companies? Is it similar to APC? The director gives no answer. Then perhaps, the companies who benefited might be some information science company, whose productivity is tied up with reading ability, while APC’s employees do not need to read in their daily work at all. Meanwhile, how about the reading level of people before taking the course? [我觉得这几个alternatives 的次序重新编排一下就更好了，理由的层次感很重要：companies 因为有了reading skills才productive了，而ABC可能已经具备了呢，进一步，ABC可能不需要呢]If the APC’s employees already are good readers, they can hardly take any advantage from this course.

Even if the two cited evidence do indicate that APC will benefit from this course, I remain unconvinced that this benefits can actually overweight[overweigh] its costs. [后半句怎么说的，我只见过costs overweigh benefits]However, no assurance is provided in this letter. Given that the course takes three weeks, APC’s productivity will decline greatly during this period.[这个理由不好，太唐突了，一个项目实施三星旗就会导致公司的效率骤然低下，太离奇了，需要具体一点，才有说服力，可以把后面那句and the amount of money...提前作为支撑的理由，还说得过去] And the amount of money will[发现你用了很多will, 不好，应该委婉一点，用would, might...] be a huge number to pay for all the employees’ courses. Will the benefits from this course cover all these costs? Can[could] APC afford this time and money? Is there any other pressing problem should be solved with this money? And do they have other choice to increase productivity with lower cost?（因为最近觉得写充分不太费劲了，但是碍于字数和时间限制，我觉得比如这里只说到可能有其他更便宜的方法也提高产量就行了，用不用再说比如可以改进设备之类的呢？希望能给我一点建议，谢谢）[我也遇到你一样的问题，你说的“写充分不太费劲”，其实是指找很多错误点很容易，但碍于时间和字数很难把每个错误驳的更充分，我觉的可以采取两个办法，要么，放弃一些逻辑错误，把三段三个错误驳的让人信服，要么就，前两段两个错误驳充分些，第三段罗列错误，就像你这样，挺好的！][很可能你会反驳我说，你这是在说一个错误，但你可以想想，也可以分成两层，公司实施这个计划，productive 不高，可能是计划成本太高，但是别忘了，不要就事论事，光盯着碗里的，公司还有许多其他薄弱环节，还需要其他的对策去解决，新东方老师说后者的错误是 either/or fallacy，明白了吧？？]Without considering and eliminating all these and other possible scenario, taking such course appears undeserving as[which] the director recommends.


In conclusion, the director’s conclusion is not convincing as it stands. To bolster this recommendation, the author has to provide more evidence that the Easy Read course will work effective[ly], especially to[for] APC. Still before I accept the final conclusion, the director must present more facts concerning the benefits and costs of this action.
（另外，是不是这样干脆每段没有联接词好呢？还是就土土的用first second好呢？我个人拿不太准。） [first, second 也是连接词亚，我个人偏向于用nor, even if/assuming/though, 更显得又逻辑层次]

[总体还是不错的，比我写得好多了，真的！拍得比较狠，简直是骨头缝里剔肉，谁让你上次把我拍的不敢出门的，这次我算是报仇了！呵呵]

[ 本帖最后由 siyuanding 于 2007-2-3 01:36 编辑 ]

staroceanUID: 2271193

In this argument, the director attempt to convince us that Acme Publishing Company (APC) will benefit greatly once all of their employees to take the Easy Read course. This recommendation is based on the observation that two individuals did a[an] excellent job [加just]after this course alone the fact that some companies improved the productivity with the help of the course. However, the evidence presented throughout the argument is vague and hence does not lend strong support to what the director claims.
[开头很漂亮，把题目的信息量都包括进去，而又很简洁，没有死板的重复题目，赞一下。
但我个人要提个理解题意的问题，我觉得两个individuals和companies是一个问题的两个层次吧，也就是说， individuals是从这些companies拿出来的典型，是用来支持companies效率提高，后者作为assumption来出现的，而前者作为evidence支撑着后者,这就导致body2主题句的麻烦]
（1。认为作者的两个证据是并列的，并不是递进的。
证据1是以两个人的个案说明这个课程对于个人有效
证据2是很多公司都受益了。
我觉得作者没说因为这两个人好，所以公司收益，根本没这个关系。所以不能用递进。）

The first unreliable evidence cited by the director is that one gradate could read really fast after the course, and another gradate rose from an assistant manager to vice president of the company less than a year. However, this two individuals’ case lend little strong[去strong] （有strong显得客观）support to the course’s effectiveness. First of all, the director fails to provide sufficient information to indicate that the graduates did absorb more information by fast reading, leaving it possible that they just read faster but were not able to think clearly throughout reading. Perhaps, they might not draw any conclusion about what they read—let alone gain more information[any information, let alone draw any conclusion]. Moreover, even granted that the graduates were really good at reading, the argument rests in the further assumption that it is the key determinant that reading skill to the graduate’s promotion. It is possible that other advances[advantages] contribute to this result, which may include[限定谁？也无关痛痒的定语，显得多余], the outstanding organizing and leading capacity, the impressive communicating and corporation[cooperating] ability and the excellent professional acknowledge[knowledge 或 experience]. It appears reasonable, therefore, these factor instead of reading skill lead to the promotion. Furthermore, even assuming the reading skill played an indispensable role to this result, this may not attribute to Easy Reading course at all. [这个问题怎么放这里谈，应给方在那个read fast一起把，中间夹了个升职的，这种跳跃性思维让人难以接受，跟我一样，思维混乱了吧，呵呵] （作者的意思是，读的快，所以提高了阅读效率，所以这人升职了。这个问题当然放在这里谈，主题句不是说这两个人的离子不能支持论点--课程好吗，所以前面先说了，读得快不一定是得到的信息多，就算真的得到信息多也不一定是因为这个成功了，就算真的就是因为阅读比一般人出色成功了，也不一定是课程的功劳。）To judge whether the course helped[is helpful], we should compare the graduates’ reading speed before with it after the course[这样表达可以吗the subsequent reading speed with the initial one before the application of the course]. Yet, there is no such information. Then maybe the two individuals were all terrific[skillful] readers before the course. Finally, I have to point out that only with two graduates information, it is necessary impossible to indicate the situation of graduates in general.
[这一段太长了，显得和后面的段落很不相称，promotion完全可以另起一段，而且还避免了，逻辑条理混乱的局面，何乐不为？？你觉得不好衔接，可用nor does the arguer give any evidence to ...一样衔接的很好]（没有觉得不好衔接，但是上面说了，这一段都是在说这两个人的例子不能证明课程好，分段显得麻烦，也不好，而且逻辑上也没有混乱呢。）

The second unreliable evidence is that many companies have recently stated that having their employees take the courses has greatly improved productivity. [unreliable 不好,特别是段首的主题句，给人的感觉是这段又要攻击company improve productivity了, 而你这段要驳斥的是不要经验借鉴，用 even assuming ...due to ...，出现这样的问题就是因为你没有将individuals 和companies 的问题划成两个层次，个人的好不是因为阅读，就算是，个人的好也不能导致公司的productive，可能另有的他因] （层次的问题我说了，这里用让步不好，而且我是从两个并列证据的可靠性下手写的）However, this evidence cannot substantiate the further inference that APC will benefits from it as well. What is the nature of the companies? Is it similar to APC? The director gives no answer. Then perhaps, the companies who benefited might be some information science company, whose productivity is tied up with reading ability, while APC’s employees do not need to read in their daily work at all. Meanwhile, how about the reading level of people before taking the course? [我觉得这几个alternatives 的次序重新编排一下就更好了，理由的层次感很重要：companies 因为有了reading skills才productive了，而ABC可能已经具备了呢，进一步，ABC可能不需要呢]If the APC’s employees already are good readers, they can hardly take any advantage from this course.

Even if the two cited evidence do indicate that APC will benefit from this course, I remain unconvinced that this benefits can actually overweight[overweigh] its costs. [后半句怎么说的，我只见过costs overweigh benefits]However, no assurance is provided in this letter. Given that the course takes three weeks, APC’s productivity will decline greatly during this period.[这个理由不好，太唐突了，一个项目实施三星旗就会导致公司的效率骤然低下，太离奇了，需要具体一点，才有说服力，可以把后面那句and the amount of money...提前作为支撑的理由，还说得过去] And the amount of money will[发现你用了很多will, 不好，应该委婉一点，用would, might...] be a huge number to pay for all the employees’ courses. Will the benefits from this course cover all these costs? Can[could] APC afford this time and money? Is there any other pressing problem should be solved with this money? And do they have other choice to increase productivity with lower cost?（因为最近觉得写充分不太费劲了，但是碍于字数和时间限制，我觉得比如这里只说到可能有其他更便宜的方法也提高产量就行了，用不用再说比如可以改进设备之类的呢？希望能给我一点建议，谢谢）[我也遇到你一样的问题，你说的“写充分不太费劲”，其实是指找很多错误点很容易，但碍于时间和字数很难把每个错误驳的更充分，我觉的可以采取两个办法，要么，放弃一些逻辑错误，把三段三个错误驳的让人信服，要么就，前两段两个错误驳充分些，第三段罗列错误，就像你这样，挺好的！][很可能你会反驳我说，你这是在说一个错误，但你可以想想，也可以分成两层，公司实施这个计划，productive 不高，可能是计划成本太高，但是别忘了，不要就事论事，光盯着碗里的，公司还有许多其他薄弱环节，还需要其他的对策去解决，新东方老师说后者的错误是 either/or fallacy，明白了吧？？]Without considering and eliminating all these and other possible scenario, taking such course appears undeserving as[which] the director recommends.


In conclusion, the director’s conclusion is not convincing as it stands. To bolster this recommendation, the author has to provide more evidence that the Easy Read course will work effective[ly], especially to[for] APC. Still before I accept the final conclusion, the director must present more facts concerning the benefits and costs of this action.
（另外，是不是这样干脆每段没有联接词好呢？还是就土土的用first second好呢？我个人拿不太准。） [first, second 也是连接词亚，我个人偏向于用nor, even if/assuming/though, 更显得又逻辑层次]（这个不是什么时候都能用的。）

[总体还是不错的，比我写得好多了，真的！拍得比较狠，简直是骨头缝里剔肉，谁让你上次把我拍的不敢出门的，这次我算是报仇了！呵呵]

我本来不想说的，唉，我不是那么有时间精力的人，也不是很喜欢说话的人，之所以改你的文说了很多话，只是有点担心罢了，以后不会说那么多话了，你放心 呵呵
谢谢改我的文，真的谢谢

[ 本帖最后由 starocean 于 2007-2-3 02:09 编辑 ]

siyuandingUID: 2154137

First of all, the director fails to provide sufficient information to indicate that the graduates did absorb more information by fast reading, leaving it possible that they just read faster but were not able to think clearly throughout reading. Perhaps, they might not draw any conclusion about what they read—let alone gain more information[any information, let alone draw any conclusion]. Moreover, even granted that the graduates were really good at reading, the argument rests in the further assumption that it is the key determinant that reading skill to the graduate’s promotion. It is possible that other advances[advantages] contribute to this result, which may include[限定谁？也无关痛痒的定语，显得多余], the outstanding organizing and leading capacity, the impressive communicating and corporation[cooperating] ability and the excellent professional acknowledge[knowledge 或 experience]. It appears reasonable, therefore, these factor instead of reading skill lead to the promotion. Furthermore, even assuming the reading skill played an indispensable role to this result, this may not attribute to Easy Reading course at all.（作者的意思是，读的快，所以提高了阅读效率，所以这人升职了。这个问题当然放在这里谈，主题句不是说这两个人的离子不能支持论点--课程好吗，所以前面先说了，读得快不一定是得到的信息多，就算真的得到信息多也不一定是因为这个成功了，就算真的就是因为阅读比一般人出色成功了，也不一定是课程的功劳。） [层次是这样的，实施课程--〉读得快--〉信息量多--〉升职，课程实施了不一定读得快，就算读得快，也不一定是得到的信息多，就算真的得到信息多也不一定是因为这个升职了] To judge whether the course helped[is helpful], we should compare the graduates’ reading speed before with it after the course[这样表达可以吗the subsequent reading speed with the initial one before the application of the course].  [这个问题怎么放这里谈，应给方在那个read fast一起把，中间夹了个升职的，这种跳跃性思维让人难以接受，跟我一样，思维混乱了吧，呵呵] Yet, there is no such information. Then maybe the two individuals were all terrific[skillful] readers before the course. Finally, I have to point out that only with two graduates information, it is necessary impossible to indicate the situation of graduates in general.

staroceanUID: 2271193

原帖由 siyuanding 于 2007-2-3 02:51 发表
.（作者的意思是，读的快，所以提高了阅读效率，所以这人升职了。这个问题当然放在这里谈，主题句不是说这两个人的离子不能支持论点--课程好吗，所以前面先说了，读得快不一定是得到的信息多，就算真的得到信息多也不一定是因为这个成功了，就算真的就是因为阅读比一般人出色成功了，也不一定是课程的功劳。） [层次是这样的，实施课程--〉读得快--〉信息量多--〉升职，课程实施了不一定读得快，就算读得快，也不一定是得到的信息多，就算真的得到信息多也不一定是因为这个升职了]

你写的作者思路和我的根本就是一样的。
至于写的时候，是不能按你那个顺序写的。
因为作者的最终目的还是为了说明课程有用。
如果一开始就写课程实施不一定读得快（这个本来也不能这么写，作者说了他们读得快，也说了上了课，怎么还写上了课也不一定读得快呢，应该写读得快不一定是因为上了课，这两个有根本区别）如果一开始写这个，那后面让步就会说，就算上了课读得快了，这样不就证明作者的观点，课程好了吗。让步的最后一定要扣到作者最后的观点上，课程好。
让步写法决不不是单单把链串起来说而已，有很多变化和必要的变化的。
而且所有这些还是得放在这段里写。

[ 本帖最后由 starocean 于 2007-2-3 13:11 编辑 ]

weiweiwawaUID: 2208145

In this argument, the director attempts to convince us that Acme Publishing Company (APC) will benefit greatly once all of their employees （去掉to) take the Easy Read course. This recommendation is based on the observation that two individuals did an excellent job after this course alone the fact that some companies improved the productivity with the help of the course. However, the evidence presented throughout the argument is vague and hence does not lend strong support to what the director claims. 开头对全文逻辑总结得很好！ The first unreliable evidence cited by the director is that one gradate could read really fast after the course, and another gradate rose from an assistant manager to vice president of the company less than a year. However, this two individuals’ case lends little (strong ）little 和 strong 放一起好奇怪啊 support to the course’s effectiveness. First of all, the director fails to provide sufficient information to indicate that the graduates did absorb more information by fast reading, leaving it possible that they just read faster but were not able to think clearly throughout reading. Perhaps, they might not draw any conclusion about what they read—let alone gain more information.和上句重复，感觉很罗嗦！ Moreover, even granted that the graduates were really good at reading, the argument rests (in)on the further assumption that it is the key determinant that reading skill to the graduate’s promotion语序不对（reading skill is the key determinant that drive the graduate's promotion quickly）. It is possible that other advances contribute to this result, which may include, the outstanding organizing and leading capacity, the impressive communicating and corporation /cooperation ability and the excellent professional acknowledge.好！ It appears reasonable, therefore, these factors instead of reading skill lead to the promotion.这句话也和上句基本重复，显得罗嗦 Furthermore, even assuming the reading skill played an indispensable role to this result, this may not attribute to Easy Reading course at all.  To judge whether the course helped, we should compare the graduates’ reading speed before with it after the course. Yet, there is no such information. Then maybe the two individuals were all terrific readers before the course. Finally, I have to point out that only with two graduates information, it is necessary impossible to indicate the situation of graduates in general. 这段有很多点，感觉你每个都不想放过，结果有的地方展开得不好！其实，这样倒不如只抓住其中的三条线：{ 课程——〉快速阅读——〉吸收知识——〉升职 } ——〉推广 个人觉得，当错误很多时，你不用面面俱到，这样develop的就不是很充足，抓住主要的就可以。就这篇而言，抓住前两个很好的展开，然后再关于推广问题，先让步，再另写一段就很充足了！ 还有，你再展开的过程中，应逐瘀局与局之间的逻辑关系。你的逻辑总结据和展开句重复的很多，其实，也可以不局与格式，可以没有总结的就直接省略好了。 The second unreliable evidence is that many companies have recently stated that having their employees take the courses has greatly improved productivity.主体具有问题，拟本段的意思主要是推广的问题，可这里似乎给人的感觉是其他公司不一定真的从中受益 However, this evidence cannot substantiate the further inference that APC will benefits from it as well. 前两局可以合成一句 What is the nature of the companies? Is it similar to APC? The director gives no answers. Then perhaps, the companies who benefited might be some information science company, whose productivity is tied up with reading ability, while APC’s employees do not need to read in their daily work at all.这是文章告诉你的 apc是pulishing company当然需要大量的读了！ Meanwhile, how about the reading level of people before taking the course? If the APC’s employees already are good readers同上, they can hardly take any advantage from this course. Even if the two pieces of cited evidence do indicate that APC will benefit from this course, I remain unconvinced that these benefits can actually overweight its costs. However,——〉Since承接不对 no assurance is provided in this letter. Given that the course takes three weeks, APC’s productivity will decline greatly during this period. And the amount of money will be a huge number to pay for all the employees’ courses. Will the benefits from this course cover all these costs? Can APC afford this time（such a long time） and money? Is there any other pressing problem should be solved with this money? And do they have other choice to increase productivity with lower cost? （因为最近觉得写充分不太费劲了，但是碍于字数和时间限制，我觉得比如这里只说到可能有其他更便宜的方法也提高产量就行了，用不用再说比如可以改进设备之类的呢？希望能给我一点建议，谢谢）Without considering and eliminating all these and other possible scenario, taking such course appears undeserving as the director recommends. 其实这段完全可以分两个层次写得 1。all 问题 2。cost 问题（这里可以回避说什么方法好，直接说这种训练可能会让APC入不敷出，企业免领短时间停产，deficency等问题，会担很大的风险） 但是由于你第一段雇佣了太多的笔墨，写到这里恐怕也没有太多展开的时间了 In conclusion, the director’s conclusion is not convincing as it stands. To bolster this recommendation, the author has to provide more evidence that the Easy Read course will work effective, especially to APC. Still before I accept the final conclusion, the director must present more facts concerning the benefits and costs of this action. （另外，是不是这样干脆每段没有联接词好呢？还是就土土的用first second好呢？我个人拿不太准。） 你现在的这种连接就很好！:handshake

我的连接，期待回拍！ http://bbs.gter.ce.cn/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=603088&extra=page%3D1%26amp%3Bfilter%3Dtype%26amp%3Btypeid%3D102

staroceanUID: 2271193

In this argument, the director attempts to convince us that Acme Publishing Company (APC) will benefit greatly once all of their employees （去掉to) take the Easy Read course. This recommendation is based on the observation that two individuals did an excellent job after this course alone the fact that some companies improved the productivity with the help of the course. However, the evidence presented throughout the argument is vague and hence does not lend strong support to what the director claims.
开头对全文逻辑总结得很好！
The first unreliable evidence cited by the director is that one gradate could read really fast after the course, and another gradate rose from an assistant manager to vice president of the company less than a year. However, this two individuals’ case lends little (strong ）little 和 strong 放一起好奇怪啊（这个是我没注意哈。） support to the course’s effectiveness. First of all, the director fails to provide sufficient information to indicate that the graduates did absorb more information by fast reading, leaving it possible that they just read faster but were not able to think clearly throughout reading. Perhaps, they might not draw any conclusion about what they read—let alone gain more information.和上句重复，感觉很罗嗦！ （恩 其实觉得这里有个小的递进在里面，所以单独写了一句。）Moreover, even granted that the graduates were really good at reading, the argument rests (in)on the further assumption that it is the key determinant that reading skill to the graduate’s promotion语序不对（reading skill is the key determinant that drive the graduate's promotion quickly（恩，其实是个强调句，但是少了动词。。。不过你的句子里面drive用得很好呢。）. It is possible that other advances contribute to this result, which may include, the outstanding organizing and leading capacity, the impressive communicating and corporation /cooperation ability and the excellent professional acknowledge.好！ It appears reasonable, therefore, these factors instead of reading skill lead to the promotion.（恩，因为觉得上面裂了很多东西，不加个句子就接着后面有点奇怪似的。是不是不加也可以呢？）这句话也和上句基本重复，显得罗嗦 Furthermore, even assuming the reading skill played an indispensable role to this result, this may not attribute to Easy Reading course at all.  To judge whether the course helped, we should compare the graduates’ reading speed before with it after the course. Yet, there is no such information. Then maybe the two individuals were all terrific readers before the course. Finally, I have to point out that only with two graduates information, it is necessary impossible to indicate the situation of graduates in general.
这段有很多点，感觉你每个都不想放过，结果有的地方展开得不好！其实，这样倒不如只抓住其中的三条线：{ 课程——〉快速阅读——〉吸收知识——〉升职 } ——〉推广
个人觉得，当错误很多时，你不用面面俱到，这样develop的就不是很充足，抓住主要的就可以。就这篇而言，抓住前两个很好的展开，然后再关于推广问题，先让步，再另写一段就很充足了！（这里其实是因为觉得要是分一段出来写也不能再写什么了，所以都放到这个证据不能支持作者观点，这个角度来写了。）
还有，你再展开的过程中，应逐瘀局与局之间的逻辑关系。你的逻辑总结据和展开句重复的很多，其实，也可以不局与格式，可以没有总结的就直接省略好了。
The second unreliable evidence is that many companies have recently stated that having their employees take the courses has greatly improved productivity.主体具有问题，拟本段的意思主要是推广的问题，可这里似乎给人的感觉是其他公司不一定真的从中受益我觉得作者的证据不能支持其论点，这个证据就是不可靠的，所以说了这个证据是不可靠的。不过我想想你说的好像也有道理，我再看看。 However, this evidence cannot substantiate the further inference that APC will benefits from it as well. 前两局可以合成一句 What is the nature of the companies? Is it similar to APC? The director gives no answers. Then perhaps, the companies who benefited might be some information science company, whose productivity is tied up with reading ability, while APC’s employees do not need to read in their daily work at all.这是文章告诉你的 apc是pulishing company当然需要大量的读了！ 出版公司不一定要读吧？出版社的人可能工人更多一点呢。而且不是写书是印书阿。但是我确实应该加上一句说出版公司不一定就要看很多东西。Meanwhile, how about the reading level of people before taking the course? If the APC’s employees already are good readers同上, they can hardly take any advantage from this course.
Even if the two pieces of cited evidence do indicate that APC will benefit from this course, I remain unconvinced that these benefits can actually overweight its costs. However,——〉Since承接不对 （这里确实是因为写however写顺手了，谢谢，提醒得很好呢。）no assurance is provided in this letter. Given that the course takes three weeks, APC’s productivity will decline greatly during this period. And the amount of money will be a huge number to pay for all the employees’ courses. Will the benefits from this course cover all these costs? Can APC afford this time（such a long time） and money? Is there any other pressing problem should be solved with this money? And do they have other choice to increase productivity with lower cost? （因为最近觉得写充分不太费劲了，但是碍于字数和时间限制，我觉得比如这里只说到可能有其他更便宜的方法也提高产量就行了，用不用再说比如可以改进设备之类的呢？希望能给我一点建议，谢谢）Without considering and eliminating all these and other possible scenario, taking such course appears undeserving as the director recommends.
其实这段完全可以分两个层次写得
1。all 问题 恩，这个因为之前写过可能不是所有的人都要看书，所以这里就没有再写，直接把all归到增加费用里面其实目的也是一样的，我觉得。因为说来说去还是因为可能不需要所有的人去，这样费用太高嘛。不过分出来写应该也可以。
2。cost 问题（这里可以回避说什么方法好，直接说这种训练可能会让APC入不敷出，企业免领短时间停产，deficency等问题，会担很大的风险）
但是由于你第一段雇佣了太多的笔墨，写到这里恐怕也没有太多展开的时间了
In conclusion, the director’s conclusion is not convincing as it stands. To bolster this recommendation, the author has to provide more evidence that the Easy Read course will work effective, especially to APC. Still before I accept the final conclusion, the director must present more facts concerning the benefits and costs of this action.
（另外，是不是这样干脆每段没有联接词好呢？还是就土土的用first second好呢？我个人拿不太准。）
你现在的这种连接就很好！:handshake

我的连接，期待回拍！
http://bbs.gter.ce.cn/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=603088&extra=page%3D1%26amp%3Bfilter%3Dtype%26amp%3Btypeid%3D102

这个我去看了，已经很多人改了，不如下次你写了我去改好吗？
记得再给我连接哦。

谢谢谢谢，改得很认真哈。

[ 本帖最后由 starocean 于 2007-2-4 00:03 编辑 ]