A127--阅读培训班 求拍

冷月钟笛

The following is a recommendation from the personnel director to the president of Acme Publishing Company.


Many other companies have recently stated that (1) having their employees take the Easy Read Speed-Reading Course has greatly improved productivity. (2)One graduate of the course was able to read a 500-page report in only two hours; (3)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, Acme would benefit greatly by requiring all of our employees to take the Easy Read course.


Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary:
1    Other companies statements: ERSRC?productivity:
1.1    One G can read 500 page in 2 hours;
1.2    Another one rose to vice P;
2    Fast read?more infor;
3    Easy read cost---small price~: A $500 per employee: 3-week sem in SC + lifelong subscription to ER newsletter
需根解损
1.    需求: whether Acme in need of doing so?
2.    解决: whether ER can do this job well?
3.    损益: whether this is a cost-benefit choice?


Reading ability is generally valued necessary for different tasks, as the President of America, Barack Obama emphasizes. Holding such belief, the author suggests Acme should require all its employees to take the Easy Read (ER) course to improve their reading ability for a high-quality work and better productivity. While it seems plausible at the first glance, this argument is lack of necessary evidence to dismiss all interference for reaching a sound conclusion.


First off, there is no evidence to show that the employees of Acme are in an urgent need of increasing their reading ability. The writer asserts “the faster you read, the more information you can absorb in a single day”, but no evidence shows whether these people in Acme really need to rely their work efficiency on absorbing more information within a same period. Maybe most employees in Acme do some jobs requiring little reading or information dealing work, therefore in no need for a high-speed reading at all. Or maybe most of the employees are in good ability of high-efficiency reading, therefore also making the suggestion for them to take reading course senseless. The need for an improvement in reading ability for the workers in Acme is the fundamental premise for the suggestion the author makes. The question on this basis about why they should do that will always be there if on evidence is provided to show the necessity of doing so.


Secondly, the evidence provided to show how ER course will work on the employees of Acme is far from enough. The author cites the recommendations from other companies as an evidence to show the ER course learning will increase the productivity of the employees. Will it make sense on the Acme employees as well? Maybe the employees of the companies under study are really poor in reading, therefore contributing to an obvious effect. But no proof is there for the same working effect on Acme. The author seemingly wants to further develop his reasoning, therefore using two individual cases to show the positive outcome of ER courses: one can read 500 pages reports in 2 hours and the other rises to vice president. After a careful scrutiny, however, we may find these two cases are too special to generalize to a commonly sustained conclusion, and no reference about their performance in the past is given to make an analogy. Even no evidence can prove whether the promotion of the second person in the examples is really related to the course taking choice, or just simply no connection between. Simply no convincing evidence provided to show whether ER course will definitely work on every employee of every single firm, leading to a weak argument.


Finally, the writer tries to convince us that the cost of taking this course is small, but he merely provides some one-side evidence, which is not enough for such a conclusion. $500 per person, so I wonder: how many people are involved in this learning program? If 1000 employees there are, it will be half a million dollars paid, quite a big deal. Even the payment is OK, let us see the content included in the course process: 3-week learning and lifelong newsletter. Is this enough to promote a person to become a proficient reader? If not, should he be required to make further payment for an advanced study? If so, I consider the price of this program is not small at all. I expect it better to provide some evidence to prove whether this choice is the cost-benefit.


In sum, the writer tries to convince the Acme firm to require its employees to take ER reading course but fail to prove the need for this choice, the working effect of this course and the cost-benefit issues. After all, these three issues are essential for a decision making, therefore calling an urgent need for further evidence to prove these sorts of things. Otherwise, the recommendation will remain untenable.


35min
657

竹林中人

或许还可以挖掘，比如reading speed 和productivity之间是不是有必然联系,还有就是是不是只有通过这个course才可以而没有其他的等等！

冷月钟笛

嗯 有道理有道理！

ppguo

冷月啊，我回来拍你了。刚交了论文，毕业啦~~~ 这几天浑天黑地的。

这篇我觉得写得很好，逻辑上很严密，论述很有力。我能想到的，你都已经写出来了。
所以，赞一个~~

冷月钟笛

呵呵，辛苦ppguo啦~ 这两天做实验，赶其他事，断断续续地上论坛~ ！