ARGUMENT180 快速阅读之于Acme [Spining Sep]小组第二次作业

MagicGlaiveUID: 2112081

TOPIC: 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: 463          TIME: 0:33:38          DATE: 2006-8-15

提纲：
1.        指出两个各例的偶然性
2.        指出公司之间的差异可能带来结果的不同
3.        并不是所有员工都需要参加该课程
4.        没有很好的衡量收入与支出

In this argument, the author recommends that Acme would benefit greatly by requiring all of its employees to toke the Easy Read Course. To support his recommendation, the author gives out two cases as evidence and makes some deduction for his view. The argument suffers from several logical flaws and is therefore unconvincing.

To begin with, the argument is greatly weakened by the two individual cases. There is no evidence to support the assumption that those two people benefit from the Speed-Reading Course. It is possible that the one who can read a five-hundred-page report in only two hours had already got such ability before taking that class which taught his even a little, while the other one who get promoted may be excellent in many other aspects (e.g. speaking, listening, work handling, etc.) and fast reading is only a minor factor that helps him rose from an assistant manager to vice president of the company in under a year. So, without any more convincible evidence, the author cannot persuade into believing that the Easy Read can greatly improve people's reading speed and could take benefits in the promotion.

To say the least, even if the Easy Read can improve reading speed, the author only point out that "many other companies" stated their employees get improved after taking that class. But the author failed to consider whether Acme is similar to the other companies. Perhaps the companies report the class is useful are those ordinary business companies while acme is a company of publishing, most of its employees are already get the ability of speed reading. Then, there is no need for its employees to take the class.

Thirdly, the author also suggests that all the employees of Acme should take the Speed-Reading Course but is it really necessary? For those who are just doing simple jobs as security guard or sweeper, there is no need for them to get reading skill improved. Also, for those who already mastered the speed-reading, taking the class is only a waste of money.

Finally, the author cannot subjectively assume that taking the class is beneficial. Benefit should be measured from both cost and income. Since there is no direct evidence that can prove the company could get a higher income and the cost of $500 per employee would cost the company a lot, this assumption is doubtful.

In sum, the argument failed to support its view by lacking convincible evidence to show the effect of taking Speed-Reading Course. To lend credibility to his recommendation, the author needs to give some more reason why Acme such a publishing company should take such a class. And to better access the argument, it would be useful to evaluate the exact benefit if Acme take the Easy Read Course.