ARGUMENT180 让砖头来的更猛烈些吧

shuwenyingUID: 2233183

ARGUMENT180 - 限时完成～～
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: 605          TIME: 0:30:00

In the argument, citing the expeirence of several graduates of the course, the director recommends that Acme (A) should require all employees to take the Easy Read Speed-Reading Course (ER). Unfortuantely, via a review of the examples about two graduates and the several seemingly sound assumptions, I cast doubt on the vadility of the recommendation.

To begin with, the cited experience of two graduates as evidence to demonstrate the effects of the peograms is unconvincing in several aspects. For one thing, although one gruaduate could read at a fast speed after taking the courses, the quality of the reading is left out of consideration. Possibily, the graduate read in a superisingly high speed while he or she fails to understand anyting after reading. Nor could he or she remember any. In a word, simply reading fast hardly means reading better. For another, the author fails to take the abilities of the cited person before he took the courses, It is entirely possible that this graduate could read faster than normal level before he attended the courses. Hence, it is possible that taking the courses improves little. Moreover, as for the graduate who got promotion after the courses, the association of the attending courses and the promotion seems weak. As common sense informs me, it requires a series of qualities to display competance to be vice president of the company while the reading speed might be among the comparatively minor factors contributing to the promotion. Without any evidence to justify the relation between promotion and reading speed, it is entirely possible that he was promoted for his abilities to work effectively and logical judgment in the company's affairs. Hence, the further effort should be devoted to preclude the alternative explanation of the two graduates' performance before the author manages to convince me that the course could improve productivity. Furthermore, even if the courses do contribute to the high reading speed and the promotion, the concept 'productivity' contains more than the two aspects. The author's conclusion that the courses could improve productivity sounds as if attending the courses could focus the employees' attention on their current work and make quick judgment to increase productivity while no evidence has been provided to prove the latter points.

Additionally, the author assumes that people could absord more if they could read in a higher speed. Nevertheless, the causal relationship between reading speed and absorbing information is unconvincing. The auhtor provides no evidence to prove the quality of  reading could beimproved by the instruction. Therefore, it is highly possible that people increase their reading speed at the cost of reading quality. They manage to finish reading in a short period of time while they actually remember nothing nor could they understand clearly.

Moreover, the author considers the five-hundred-dollar fee is comparatively low. However, the standard for low and high should be varied according to devise aspects. First, the author fails to calculate the possible benefits that be brought in by attending the courses thus the benefits might hardly exceed the payment for the courses. Up to this point, the payment is too high and is not worth to some extent.

Last but not least, even if the courses could remarkably improve the productivity, it might be unnecessary to require all employees to take the courses. On the one hand, some employees may have taken similar courses and it is unnessary for them to take such courses.  Some may master such outstanding reading skills that they have little to receive such training.  On the other hand, some employees are in little need of reading skills to carry their work successfully. For instance, the cleaners, cooks and the attendents might be competance for their jobs without outstanding reading skills. Hence,the recommendation that all employees should be forced to take the courses make little sense.

In sum, the argument suffers from serious logical fallacies and the recommendation sounds unconvincing to me. To bolster the recommendation, the author should at a minimum to carry out investigation to demonstrate the effect of the courses including the raeding speed, the quality of reading and the effect to the productivity. Then he should list the employees who should take the courses and the ones who hardly need the courses.

seafish0426UID: 2407075

In the argument, citing the expeirence of several graduates of the course, the director recommends that Acme (A) should require all employees to take the Easy Read Speed-Reading Course (ER). Unfortuantely, via a review of the examples about two graduates and the several seemingly sound assumptions, I cast doubt on the vadility(不太清楚作者的意思) of the recommendation.(个人认为这一段对argument的概述不足，是否应该指出论者提出这一要求的目的 benefit greatly 以及论者对于培训费用的合理性的认识) To begin with, the cited experience of two graduates as evidence to demonstrate the effects of the peograms is unconvincing in several aspects. For one thing, although one gruaduate could read at a fast speed after taking the courses, the quality of the reading is left out of consideration. Possibily, the graduate read in a superisingly high speed while he or she fails to understand anyting(anything) after reading. Nor could he or she remember any. In a word, simply reading fast hardly means reading better. (这一句和下面的第二点的论证有重复，我觉得这里可以不用这个理由)For another, the author fails to take the abilities of the cited person before he took the courses, It is entirely possible that this graduate could read faster than normal level before he attended the courses. Hence, it is possible that taking the courses improves little. Moreover, as for the graduate who got promotion after the courses, the association of the attending courses and the promotion seems weak. As common sense informs me, it requires a series of qualities to display competance to be vice president of the company while the reading speed might be among the comparatively minor factors contributing to the promotion. Without any evidence to justify the relation between promotion and reading speed, it is entirely possible that he was promoted for his abilities to work effectively and logical judgment in the company's affairs. Hence(前面用过了，建议换一个), the further effort should be devoted to preclude the alternative explanation of the two graduates' performance before the author manages to convince me that the course could improve productivity. Furthermore, even if the courses do contribute to the high reading speed and the promotion, the concept 'productivity' contains more than the two aspects. The author's conclusion that the courses could improve productivity sounds as if attending the courses could focus the employees' attention on their current work and make quick judgment to increase productivity while no evidence has been provided to prove the latter points. Additionally, the author assumes that people could absord more if they could read in a higher speed. Nevertheless, the causal relationship between reading speed and absorbing information is unconvincing. The auhtor provides no evidence to prove the quality of  reading could be improved by the instruction. Therefore, it is highly possible that people increase their reading speed at the cost of reading quality. They manage to finish reading in a short period of time while they actually remember nothing nor could they understand clearly.(这一观点和上面重复) Moreover, the author considers the five-hundred-dollar fee is comparatively low. However, the standard for low and high should be varied according to devise aspects. First,(这里好像只有这一点，所以不用first 比较好) the author fails to calculate the possible benefits that be brought in by attending the courses thus the benefits might hardly exceed the payment for the courses. Up to this point, the payment is too high and is not worth to some extent. Last but not least, even if the courses could remarkably improve the productivity, it might be unnecessary to require all employees to take the courses. On the one hand, some employees may have taken similar courses and it is unnessary for them to take such courses.  Some may master such outstanding reading skills that they have little to receive such training.  On the other hand, some employees are in little need of reading skills to carry their work successfully. For instance, the cleaners, cooks and the attendents might be  competance(competent) for their jobs without outstanding reading skills. Hence,the recommendation that all employees should be forced to take the courses make little sense. In sum, the argument suffers from serious logical fallacies and the recommendation sounds unconvincing to me. To bolster the recommendation, the author should at a minimum to carry out investigation to demonstrate the effect of the courses including the raeding speed, the quality of reading and the effect to the productivity. Then he should list the employees who should take the courses and the ones who hardly need the courses.

总的来说写的很好，批的条理很清楚。我是新手，看到你写的文章已经觉得很完美了，真的找不到再多值得改进的地方，实在不好意思！ 向你学习！

liyue24UID: 2350787

原帖由 seafish0426 于 2007-11-6 17:13 发表

(个人认为这一段对argument的概述不足，是否应该指出论者提出这一要求的目的 benefit greatly 以及论者对于培训费用的合理性的认识)

诚然。Argument的首段还是蛮关键的，要能完整的概述出原文的各evidence和纰漏。换句话说，首段应该是后面全文的提纲。如果首段只涉及到一个问题而后面提到好几条，未免是对自己文章结构的严重打击。

shuwenyingUID: 2233183

其实我也很努力希望将开头完善，但是因为时间真是太紧了，所以就有牺牲开头的打算……
看来还是应该认真写好开头才是～
谢谢批改，正在认真研究中^_^
欢迎留链互拍！

liyue24UID: 2350787

开头结尾其实是有固定套路可寻的——注意我不是说大家可以使用模板，而是要有自己的套路。

这里如果练习好了，是可以很节省时间而且给后面打好基础提纲挈领统筹全篇，所以不能牺牲掉，呵呵...