argument 113 求拍哦 亲~

dengjia

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.

In this argument, the arguer advises that all of our employees should take the Easy Read course. To justify this advice, the arguer points out that employees in many other companies who have taken the Easy Read Speed-Reading Course have greatly improved productivity, and this improving way could be used in Acme. In addition, the arguer reasons that this course cost not much when considering the profits it brings to Acme in the long run. This argument appears reasonable and convincing at first glance, however, when considering the process of reasoning, it concludes critical fallacy.

First of all, the arguer fails to provide persuasive evidence to demonstrate that employees in many other companies have improved their productivity after being trained in the Easy Read course. Questions on the evidence could be asked that: Does improvement of ability of only two graduates in other companies show the excellent training effect of Easy Reading? What about the other graduates? Could all of the employees in Acme improve their ability in reading. Does the enhanced reading celerity means the more information he could absorbing? If all of just a part of the answers are negative or just in suspect, the effect of Easy Reading may not very good.

In addition, even if training effect of Easy Read is excellent, is it proper for clerk of Acme to train? The arguer have not made a conspicuous comparison of Acme with many other companies mentioned in the argument. If those companies are totally different from Acme, the training may provide effect not so obvious. And if Acme is the top company in publishing field owns excellent clerks and those clerks’ abilities in reading are superior than some same kind companies, it would be not proper for employees to take course. Therefore, more statistics and information should be displayed in the argument for assuring the effect of training.

What’s more, even if Easy Reading works well, is it necessary for Acme to require all the clerks to take the course? If not all of the employees in Acme need to read and absorb lots of information, training all of the clerks are wasting money. And if some employees intend to leave Acme in the immediate future, it would not bring benefits to Acme. It will be better that the proper proportion or the list of clerks displayed to save and proper use sources of Acme.

To sum up, although the reasoning behind advises that all of our employees should take the Easy Read course seems logical, his or her advice mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning. In order to improve the quality of recommendation, more statistics of enhancement in absorbing the information and effect of working should be expounded.

写了45分钟 改了3小时。。。求狂踩加指正啊！

tingtang

HI, I want to know what is the meaning of the sentence

. It will be better that the proper proportion or the list of clerks displayed to save and proper use sources of Acme.

thank you advance.

dengjia

OH~thank you

lukebrehm

yes! much better

dengjia

what do you think of the structure of the second paragraph? Is it appropriate?

Thank you very much for pointing out those errors never noticed by me! Thank you!

dengjia

I wrongly composed the sentence you mentioned above.

"If all of the answers, or just a part of them, are negative, the effect of Easy Reading may not be very significant." may be the appropriate express.

lukebrehm

Some of the other noticeable mistakes:

1. Where did you get "clerk" from? It is not really in the argument to begin with so you shouldn't add that.
2. is it proper (necessary)
3. The arguer have (past tense, has) not made
4. that the proper (we aren't at a tea party, use the word appropriate instead) proportion or the list

keep at it and you will get better, good luck

lukebrehm

First of all, the arguer fails to provide persuasive evidence to demonstrate that employees in many other companies have really improved their productivity after being trained in the Easy Read course. But we should ask the following questions: Does improvement of ability of only two graduates in other companies show the excellent training effect of Easy Reading? What about the other graduates? Could all of the employees in Acme improve their ability in reading? Does the enhanced reading celerity really mean that they will be able to absorb more information? If all of just a part of the answers are negative or just in suspect(I don't understand what your trying to say here, it is very unclear), the effect of Easy Reading may not be very good.