Argument180 看看有4分吗?

susan8940UID：160449

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: 424          TIME: 0:37:05          DATE: 2007-3-20

The arguer asserts that Acme Publishing Company will benefit a lot by requiring all its emplyees to take the Easy Read course. However, the arguer failes to provide enough and firm evidence to support this arguement, thus the assertion totally unpersuasive.

First, the president fails to offer detailed evidence on the conclusion that many other companies' staffs benefit a lot from the course. One graduate can read quite fast does unnecessarily represent that the quality of the reading is maintained or even impoved. And another graduate getting promoted in a year may be just because his/her talent and capability on certain professtion, not a bit relevant to the course. In order to make it more convincing, the author at least ought to give statistical result on at least hundreds of emplyees, including the comparison between productivity of members in those companies before and after the course, and wilth all other factors that may influence this statics remain constant. However, the arguer has never cited anything about that, which makes the success of this course really questionable.

Further, even though we admit that the course does work on those companies, there is little evidence to prove that the course will also help a lot to employees of Acme. Unless the author clearly shows the similarity between Acme and those other companies, the assertion that the course will benefit Acme a lot is completely unwarranted. Perhaps those companies' main stuff is to read and analylize thousands pages of reports every day, thus calling for the perfect fast reading skill, while most employees in Acme focus on writing articles instead of reading them. As a result, it may turn out to be a total waste to join such course.

Finally, even though it is proved that the course will beneit Acme a lot, it may not be necessary to ask all its emplyees to take it. Anyway, maybe some emplyees never have to read, or leastly fast read. There may be enough time for them to finish their work. Then the quality instead of speed of reading seems more significant. For those people, of course taking the course is not worthwhile.

To sum up, the argument suffers from several unconvincing assumptions which makes it hardly perfect. If the author want to improve the argument, a series of statics about prodoctivity incream after the course and the evidence to show the similarity of thses companies are needed. And the president should let those who really need such course take it to make it the most beneficial for Acme.

绝望的人流浪UID：2188756

有了...有4分的...

pippo1983UID：172110

Argument180 看看有4分吗?
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: 424          TIME: 0:37:05          DATE: 2007-3-20

The arguer asserts that Acme Publishing Company will benefit a lot by requiring all its emplyees to take the Easy Read course. However, the arguer failes to provide enough and firm evidence to support this arguement, thus the assertion totally unpersuasive.

First, the president fails to offer detailed evidence on the conclusion that many other companies' staffs benefit a lot from the course. One graduate can read quite fast does unnecessarily represent that the quality of the reading is maintained or even impoved. （可以进一步举例）And another graduate getting promoted in a year may be just because his/her talent and capability on certain professtion, not a bit relevant to the course. In order to make it more convincing, the author at least ought to give statistical result on at least hundreds of emplyees, including the comparison between productivity of members in those companies before and after the course, and wilth all other factors that may influence this statics remain constant. However, the arguer has never cited anything about that, which makes the success of this course really questionable.

Further, even though we admit that the course does work on those companies, there is little evidence to prove that the course will also help a lot to employees of Acme. Unless the author clearly shows the similarity between Acme and those other companies （这句话改成不同公司情况可能不同，下面再举例，就连贯多了）, the assertion that the course will benefit Acme a lot is completely unwarranted. Perhaps those companies' main stuff is to read and analylize thousands pages of reports every day, thus calling for the perfect fast reading skill, while most employees in Acme focus on writing articles instead of reading them. As a result, it may turn out to be a total waste to join such course.

Finally, even though it is proved that the course will beneit Acme a lot, it may not be necessary to ask all its emplyees to take it. Anyway, maybe some emplyees never have to read, or leastly fast read. There may be enough time for them to finish their work. Then the quality instead of speed of reading seems more significant. For those people, of course taking the course is not worthwhile.我汗，后面那些钱的问题一点都没反驳，是要扣分的啊，太明显的错误了）

To sum up, the argument suffers from several unconvincing assumptions which makes it hardly perfect. If the author want to improve the argument, a series of statics about prodoctivity incream after the course and the evidence to show the similarity of thses companies are needed. And the president should let those who really need such course take it to make it the most beneficial for Acme.

补充完整的话4分应该不是太难的

susan8940UID：160449

钱的怎么反驳啊...

我看来看去没找到错...

5555555

pippo1983UID：172110

500每人的成本，怎么和收益比？全体人员*500是不是就很多了呢？seminai要3周是不是长了些？交通费用住宿费用自己要掏钱么？以后的newsletter有用么？

styUID：2276272

The arguer asserts that Acme Publishing Company will benefit[] a lot by requiring all its emplyees to take the Easy Read course. However, the arguer failes to provide enough and firm evidence to support this arguement, thus the assertion[加上 is] totally unpersuasive.

First, the president fails to offer detailed evidence on the conclusion that many other companies' staffs benefit[改成have benefit为好] a lot from the course. One graduate [加上that]can read quite fast does unnecessarily represent that the quality of the reading is maintained or even impoved. And another graduate getting promoted in a year may be just because〔加上of〕 his/her talent and capability on certain professtion, not a bit relevant to the course. In order to make it more convincing, the author at least ought to give statistical result on at least hundreds of emplyees[不写数字], including the comparison between productivity of members in those companies before and after the course, and wilth〔while〕 all other factors that may influence this statics remain constant. However, the arguer has never cited anything about that, which makes the success of this coursereally questionable.

Further, even though we admit that the course does work on those companies, there is little evidence to prove that the course will also help a lot to employees of Acme. Unless the author clearly shows the similarity between Acme and those other companies, the assertion that the course will benefit Acme a lot is completely unwarranted. Perhaps those companies' main stuff is to read and analylize thousands pages of reports every day, thus calling for the perfect fast reading skill, while most employees in Acme focus on writing articles instead of reading them. As a result, it may turn out to be a total waste to join such course.

Finally, even though it is proved that the course will beneit〔benefit〕 Acme a lot, it may not be necessary to ask all its emplyees to take it. Anyway, maybe some emplyees never have to read, or leastly fast read. There may be [have]enough time for them to finish their work. Then the quality instead of speed of reading seems more significant. For those people, of course taking the course is not worthwhile.

To sum up, the argument suffers from several unconvincing assumptions which makes it hardly perfect. If the author want to improve the argument, a series of statics about prodoctivity incream after the course and the evidence to show the similarity of thses companies are needed. And the president should let those who really need such course take it to make it the most beneficial for Acme.

写得很仔细，很清楚，加油～～

styUID：2276272

钱的问题，应该是
costs only $500 per employee-a small price to pay when you consider the benefits to Acme.
作者想当然认为benefits要远远大于$500,
可是当benefits 只有丁点或根本没有时，这个数就不小了

pippo1983UID：172110

我的，有空请帮忙拍拍
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... e%3D1#pid1769920566

pippo1983UID：172110

发错了。。。。

[ 本帖最后由 pippo1983 于 2007-3-25 11:00 编辑 ]