Argument180 飞跃dreams小组-第5次作业

lyokaUID: 2451632

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."

Word: 366  Time: 60 minutes
The author reaches the conclusion that Acme would benefit greatly by requiring all of their employees to take the Easy Read course. The conclusion is based on the fact that two individuals promoted after taking the course. Nevertheless, what the author says does not make good sense in several aspects.

On the one hand, the author only says that the two individuals promoted after taking the course. That does not necessarily mean that the course acted effectively in their promotion. It is completely possible that the two individuals have outstanding abilities themselves and they learnt nothing from the course; that is to say, whether they took the course does not make any difference. The author just can not establish convincing causal relationship between the two incidents.

On the other hand, even granted that the course plays an important role in the promotion of the two individuals, it is too hasty to require all of the employees to take the Easy Read course. Indeed, the faster you read, the more information you can absorb in a single workday. However, not all of the employees need to take in a lot of information, such as the workers in the workshop. It is a waste of money to spend money on their courses because reading has nothing to do with their work.

Besides, the author says that the faster you can read, the more information you can absorb in a single workday. While only speed can not decide the information one absorbs. The efficiency plays an equally important role. And also, the examples given are too limited and they may be exceptions of all the people who take the course. If they are not representative, what the author says is of little credibility.

To sum up, the author’s conclusion is too hasty and of little conviction. In the absence of the evidence that the course does improve people’s reading ability effectively, we just can not judge whether Acme should invest on taking the course. And even if it does work effectively, there is no necessity that we require all employees to take the course. All in all, whether Acme will benefit from the measure is still open to doubt.

shallinZUID: 2449645

倒着改好了!先改第五次的作业好了

yolanda419UID: 2420192

The author reaches the conclusion that Acme would benefit greatly by requiring all of their employees to take the Easy Read course. The conclusion is based on the fact that two individuals promoted after taking the course（while in the article, only one graduate promoted, the other just can read a 500-pages report in two hours）. Nevertheless, what the author says does not make good sense in several aspects.

On the one hand, the author only says that the two individuals promoted after taking the course. That does not necessarily mean that the course acted effectively in their promotion. It is completely possible that the two individuals have outstanding abilities themselves and they learnt nothing from the course; that is to say, whether they took the course does not make any difference. The author just can not establish convincing causal relationship between the two incidents.

On the other hand, even granted that the course plays an important role in the promotion of the two individuals, it is too hasty to require all of the employees to take the Easy Read course. Indeed, the faster you read, the more information you can absorb in a single workday(既然这个是下文的攻击点，那么在这里应该可以省去). However, not all of the employees need to take in a lot of information, such as the workers in the workshop. It is a waste of money to spend money on their courses because reading has nothing to do with their work.

Besides, the author says that the faster you can read, the more information you can absorb in a single workday. While only speed can not decide the information one absorbs. The efficiency plays an equally important role. And also, the examples given are too limited and they may be exceptions of all the people who take the course. If they are not representative, what the author says is of little credibility.

To sum up, the author’s conclusion is too hasty and of little conviction. In the absence of the evidence that the course does improve people’s reading ability effectively, we just can not judge whether Acme should invest on taking the course. And even if it does work effectively, there is no necessity that we require all employees to take the course. All in all, whether Acme will benefit from the measure is still open to doubt.   
评价：1、开头段对原文论据概括得不好，个人认为原文作者的根据主要有三点：即其他公司的员工参加该课程之后生产效率提高了、两个个体的例子以及学费相对于预想的效益很便宜。我也觉得很难概括，但至少不能让评委觉得你理解错了意思。
      2、虽然分了三段论述，但感觉只攻击了两处。
      3、语言运用得挺好：）
不知道有没有说错的地方，因为我也只是菜鸟~~继续加油啊~~~
欢迎回拍https://bbs.gter.net/thread-799997-1-1.html ：）