Argument 113 Should all Acme workers purchase Easy Read course?

peepul

"Many other companies (1) 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(4,5); another graduate(2) rose from an assistant manager to vice president of the company in under a year(3). 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 (6) 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 (8) by requiring all(7) of our employees to take the Easy Read course."最近,其他很多公司指出他们的员工参加了easy read 的速读课程之后生产效率有了显著提高.该课程的而一名毕业生能够在两小时内读完长达五百页的报告,另一名毕业生在一年内从助理\提升到副总裁.显然阅读速度越快,在一天内所能吸收的信息量就越大.而且easy read 的学费仅为一人500元,相对于他将带给Acme 的巨大效益来说,是个小数目.这个费用包括在Spruce市举行的为期三周的研讨会和Easy read 刊物的终生订阅.显而易见为提高工作效率,Acme应该要求所有的员工参加Easy Read 的课程.
提纲:
1.错误类比:这些公司有可比性么?
2.数据调查类错误:两个员工足以说明问题么?
3.因果关系不明:课程第一个毕业生的阅读效率及第二个毕业生的提升的关系.
4.不是所有的人都需要订阅该课程.
Merely based on unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the statement draws a conclusion that requiring all the employees to subscribe for the Easy Read course would benefit A greatly. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer points out evidence that many other companies reported the productivity has been greatly improved with the subscription of ER course. The author also gives two examples of two graduates who have done well in the careers, of the course. At first glance, the recommendation appears to be somewhat reasonably, however, a further reflection reveals that it omits several crucial concerns which should be addressed to support the argument. In my point of view, the author suffers from false analogy, cause and effect and insufficient investigation and analysis logical flaws.
Firstly, the arguer’s recommendation relies on what maybe a poor analogy between “many other companies” and Acme. The analogy falsely depends on the assumption that scenarios in “many other companies” and A are similar. However, it is entirely possible that A is completely distinctive from those companies in industrial structure and operation mode.Perhaps, most employees in A are labors, who just work on some repetitive task, in contrast, intellectual workers, who need to be informed of all kinds of information, account for a large percentage among all the workers in those other companies. In short, without accounting for important possible differences between A and those other companies, the arguer cannot reasonably prove the proposed method will help A.
Secondly, unless the surveyor sampled a sufficient number of graduates of ER course and did so randomly across then entire spectrum, the report of the investigation is not reliable to gauge the value of ER course generally. The number of the two samples in itself does not ensure the representativeness. For example, if the sample included only two diligent and innovative employees, who are preeminent in every aspects and account for only a little percentage of all the employees, the result of the report will be rendered meaningless.
Thirdly, the author fails to establish a causal relationship between the course and the ability of the first graduate and the promotion of the second graduate as well. This argument is unacceptable unless there is compelling evidence to support the connection between the course and the success they have achieved. Perhaps, for example, their performances result from their major and interests.
A further problem with the recommendation is that do all the employees in Acme need to take the course? However, common sense informs us not every worker need to attain lots of information in their workplace. The author fails to convince us of this aspect.
To sum up, the director fails to substantiate his claim that Acme would benefit greatly by requiring all of our employees to take the Easy Read course, because the evidences cited do not lend strong support to what he maintains. To make the recommendation more convincing, the author should demonstrate that A and those other companies are comparable. Furthermore, accurate and extensive investigation would be necessary to support the claim. Also essential would be the explanation about why should every employee take part in the course. Therefore, if the argument had included the given factors above, it would be more thorough and logically acceptable.

普渡哥

Merely based on unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the statement draws a conclusion that requiring all the employees to subscribe for the Easy Read course would benefit A greatly.

第一句里最好不要用A简称。

peepul

嗯 写的时候名字全用简称了 还忘了加说明 和考试就不行了 我会粘贴上去的