标题: Argue 113 求指点多谢！ [打印本页] 作者: konatsu 时间: 2012-11-20 20:37 标题: Argue 113 求指点多谢！ Argument 113) 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 500-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 would cost Acme only $500 per employee—a small price to pay when you consider the benefits. Included in this fee is a three-week seminar in Spruce City and a lifelong subscription to the Easy Read newsletter. Clearly, to improve productivity, Acme should require all of our employees to take the Easy Read course.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the advice and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the advice.
Time: 35min... Words: 444 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The personnel director recommends that Acme Publishing Company(APC) should require all the emplyees to take this Easy Read Speed-Reading Course which can bring about improvement in productivity, based on other companies' experience, success of two graduates, and the relatively low price. However, before hastily achieve the conclusion cited, several questions should be answered.
Is the course's effect guaranteed? The evidences provided merely compose weak support. The argument does not mention the former reading speed of the graduate who could read 500 pages in two hours after the course. Maybe he/she used to read even faster. So the effect of the course is not certain. Also, the other graduate might be promoted, not necessarily a result of taking this course, but instead the overall contribution, management skills or else. Even assuming they really benefited enormously from this course, two examples cannot represent the overall effect. Possibly other graduates benefited little. Therefore before answering this question about the actual effect of the course, it would be unreasonable to adopt the recommendation.
Is the course suitable for every employee? The staff in a publishing company have a variety from managers to cleaners, and every position values various qualities. Employees related to publishing business are required to read fast and well. But is is not an essential ability for agents, receptionists and cleaners. Taking a speed-reading course has little benefit for them. Consequently it is doubtful whether the course will have influence on every APC employee, and if evidences fail to fully substantiate it, the recommendation is not persuasive.
Will APC have a great chance to attain advancement in productivity similarly just like some other companies? No answer is given in the argument. Also no description about those companies earning benefit from the course is cited. In some extent it is true that reading ability plays a role in the working efficiency, but its significance has a limit. There is not an axiom saying that the faster one reads, the better one works. Maybe some other companies tended to ignore the reading ability of employees in the past and it became a problem in their work. So when they had employees take the course, it did help to their productivity. But since APC is a publishing company, the emplyees in positions related to publishing business are supposed to have good reading ability, which is a premise of their admission to the jobs and enables them to finish their work. In this case, taking the course may not bring much advantages by improving their reading speed.
To conclude, the recommendation is not a result of airtight deduction. Unless the questions above are explicitly answered, no settled evaluation can be made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 努力扣要求了，写完发现questions提宽泛了，没推敲...段首直接用问题作排比感觉上还是挺顺畅的，能这么任性不？...表达上比较单调，憋得很... 现看的题，逻辑上理得不是很顺，也没提到time和cost，其实想在第三个问题里加一个side effect的，又觉得太长了很不平衡，而且也没时间了...在思路上有什么建议吗？ 所以说我今晚决定过题库敲提纲...何况Issue还没开始求拍呢(>_<) 如果AW分开报分就好了...... 多谢！鞠躬！！！作者: 普渡哥 时间: 2012-11-21 11:16
结尾有点不平衡。作者: 竹林中人 时间: 2012-11-24 21:51 The personnel director recommends that Acme PublishingCompany (APC) should require all the employees to take this Easy ReadSpeed-Reading Course which can bring about improvement in productivity, basedon other companies' experience, success of two graduates, and therelatively low（这个信息文中并没有直接给出）price. However, before hastily achieve theconclusion cited, several questions should be answered. Is the course's effect guaranteed?（我觉得最好不要开头就发问，而最好先指出某个依据之后在发问，这样更自然些）Theevidences provided merely compose weak support. The argument does not mentionthe former reading speed of the graduate who could read 500 pages in two hoursafter the course. Maybe he/she used to read even faster. So the effect of thecourse is not certain. Also, the other graduate might be promoted, notnecessarily a result of taking this course, but instead the overallcontribution, management skills or else. Even assuming they really benefitedenormously from this course, two examples cannot represent the overall effect.Possibly other graduates benefited little. Therefore before answering thisquestion about the actual effect of the course, it would be unreasonable toadopt the recommendation. Is the course suitable for every employee? The staffs in a publishing companyhave a variety from managers to cleaners, and every position values variousqualities. Employees related to publishing business are required to read fastand well. But it is not an essential ability for agents, receptionists andcleaners. Taking a speed-reading course has little benefit for them.Consequently it is doubtful whether the course will have influence on every APCemployee, and if evidences fail to fully substantiate it, the recommendation isnot persuasive. Will APC have a great chance to attain advancement in productivity similarlyjust like some other companies? No answer is given in the argument. Also nodescription about those companies earning benefit from the course is cited. Insome extent it is true that reading ability plays a role in the workingefficiency, but its significance has a limit. There is not an axiom saying that，the fasterone reads, the better one works. Maybe some other companies tended to ignorethe reading ability of employees in the past and it became a problem in theirwork. So when they had employees take the course, it did help to their productivity.But since APC is a publishing company, the employees in positions related topublishing business are supposed to have good reading ability, which is apremise of their admission to the jobs and enables them to finish their work.In this case, taking the course may not bring much advantage byimproving their reading speed. To conclude, the recommendation is not a result of airtight deduction. Unlessthe questions above are explicitly answered, no settled evaluation can be made. 整体上还是很不错的，如果能把文中提到的纠正下