argument180[Jet小组]第十六次作业

ellefrancaiUID: 2449693

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: 466

The recommendation from the personnel director to the president of Acme Publishing Company made the conclusion that Acme would benefit greatly by requiring all of our employees to take the Easy Read course since the course can greatly improve productivity according to the author. However, this argument can hardly make me persuade because it is full of logical flaws and lacks adequate evidences to support his conclusion by all means.

Above all, the arguer made hasty conclusion of the effect of taking the Easy Read Speed-Reading Course according to the statement of other companies. Since no further detailed information was given by the arguer, it is possible that these companies have nothing to do with publishing. Maybe they are typing companies so that taking the Easy Read Speed-Reading Course helps to improve their employees' productivity, which will not have this great effect for Acme Publishing Company since they focused on different fields.

Assuming those companies are also publishing ones, the evidences provided by the arguer is still too limited to illustrate the effectiveness of the course by presenting two special examples of two single persons from which we can see no common meaning to other people. What I mean is that the truth that one graduate of the course was able to read a five-hundred-page report in only two hours and another graduate rose from an assistant manager to vice president of the company in under a year have no business with the conclusion that the arguer made, since it is entirely possible that the former is a genius and he or she was able to do that even when he or she had not taken that course and the promotion of the latter is because of his or her diligence and talent in the job itself.

Moreover, assuming that the course does help people to read faster, it is still too rush for the arguer to make a conclusion that the costs of Easy Read is a small price to pay when the benefits to Acme considered since no further materials about the costs of absence and other respects of employees are provided. The fee included a three-week seminar in Spruce City and the absences of employees will make a loss of company at that time, especially concerning all employees. Also, it is possible that employees will change their jobs or companies since they regard themselves as more competitive after the course.

In sum, the conclusion made by the author that Acme would benefit greatly by requiring all of their employees to take the Easy Read course is risky and unconvincing. Most of all, employees of some positions do not need to improve their reading speed, such as those workers operating machines to publish books, whose ability of operating machines familiarly is much more important.