Argument180 Spring-第四次作业 求拍必回！

dairuxin512UID: 2178329

Argument 180the 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."
字数：544    用时：1小时   希望好心人帮忙拍，我一定会回拍滴！

In this argument, the personnel director suggests Acme Publishing Company to pay for Easy Read Speed-Reading Course for every employee. In order to support his suggestion, examples about two graduates are given out to prove other companies have benefited from the course. After a close examination of the suggestion, it is filled with at least three logical flaws so that I cannot believe it.

At first, in order to prove the efficiency of the Easy Read Speed-Reading Course, the author cited two instances to support. However, only discussiones about two graduates who finished the course are given out, yet, not any previous conditions of them are mentioned, so I cannot make a specific comparison to inspect actual effects of the course. It is possible that the former graduate has had a special ability in reading before attending the course, then reading a five-hundred-page report in only two hours is common thing to him or her. And the after may be good at management, and such capacity helps him or her gain an opportunity to promotion. If it is the fact, the example of that graduate cannot prove anything for Reading Course. Furthermore, even the two graduates improved during studying the course, no more instances is put out to convince us everyone who participates in the course will must benefit from it. Only when we can assure that the effects of the course are adpat to every learner, at least most learners, we would believe that employees of Acme Publishing Company will get the same results from the course.

Secondarily, the author considers that reading more quickly means absorbing more information, which guarantees better work performance. In fact, two causalities cannot be established. The former one, faster reading resulting in more information absorbed, is not the fact. Since faster reading just make readers contact more information, but do not guarantee them absorbing them. The later is more untenable, for that better work performance involves in several factors, like responsibility, intelligence, and diligence. Even in publish realm, reading more materials is important, but understanding and sensitivity to literature is more necessary. More information and better performance has no direct cause relationship, therefore, the value of attending the course should be reconsidered.

Finally, even Reading Course is really helpful, however, the cost of $500 per employee is large expense and we should have serious consideration. After all, those money can be also used in many needed places, such as improving office environment, increasing medical insurance for employees or handing out as rewards. Additionally, is it necessary to buy the course for the all employee? Some jobs do not need their workers to receive so much information, like cleaning, then paying cleaners for the course might be a waste. In all, the author fails to consider whether it is worth to pay for the course for every member of the company or parts of them.

In conclusion, there are several logical fallacies in the argument, and these unreasonable points decrease the its reliability. In order to make the suggestion convince us, the director should provide more instances to prove the effects of Reading course. In addition, he or she should consider and analyze who would really benefit from the course, and who is necessary to the course.

[ 本帖最后由 dairuxin512 于 2007-11-18 00:34 编辑 ]

xihaiweiwei3UID: 2390076

In this argument, the personnel director suggests Acme Publishing Company to pay for Easy Read Speed-Reading Course for every employee. In order to support his suggestion, examples about two graduates are given out to prove other companies have benefited from the course. After a close examination of the suggestion, it is filled with at least three logical flaws so that I cannot believe【用agree好些吧】 it.

At first, in order to prove the efficiency of the Easy Read Speed-Reading Course, the author cited two instances to support. However, only discussiones about two graduates who finished the course are given out, yet,【yet不要当however用了:loveliness: 】 not any previous conditions of them are mentioned, so I cannot make a specific comparison to inspect actual effects of the course. It is possible that the former graduate has had【用一般过去时写吧，显得容易理解:loveliness: 】 a special ability in reading before attending the course, then reading a five-hundred-page report in only two hours is common thing to him or her. And the after may be good at management, and such capacity helps him or her gain an opportunity to promotion. If it is the fact, the example of that graduate cannot prove anything for Reading Course. Furthermore, even the two graduates improved during studying the course, no more instances is put out to convince us everyone who participates in the course will must benefit from it. Only when we can assure that the effects of the course are adpat to every learner, at least most learners, we would believe that employees of Acme Publishing Company will get the same results from the course.

Secondarily, the author considers that reading more quickly means absorbing more information, which guarantees better work performance. In fact, two causalities cannot be established. The former one, faster reading resulting in more information absorbed, is not the fact. Since faster reading just make readers contact more information, but do not guarantee them absorbing them. The later is more untenable, for that better work performance involves in several factors, like responsibility, intelligence, and diligence. Even in publish realm, reading more materials is important, but understanding and sensitivity to literature is more necessary. More information and better performance has no direct cause relationship, therefore, the value of attending the course should be reconsidered.

Finally, even Reading Course is really helpful, however, the cost of $500 per employee is large expense and we should have serious consideration. After all, those money can be also used in many needed places, such as improving office environment, increasing medical insurance for employees or handing out as rewards. Additionally, is it necessary to buy the course for the all employee? Some jobs do not need their workers to receive so much information, like cleaning, then paying cleaners for the course might be a waste. In all, the author fails to consider whether it is worth to pay for the course for every member of the company or parts of them.【段首承认Course is really helpful，又说对一些人没用？:confused: 】

In conclusion, there are several logical fallacies in the argument, and these unreasonable points decrease the its reliability. In order to make the suggestion convince us, the director should provide more instances to prove the effects of Reading course. In addition, he or she should consider and analyze who would really benefit from the course, and who is necessary to the course.

文章能够充分展开，攻击的论点也很充实。
写的真不错，只是提了点个人意见！仅供参考！:loveliness:
加油啊！:) :handshake