- 2021年03月08日13:36 来源：小站整理
- 参与（0） 阅读（611）
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 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 benefit. 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 by requiring all of our employees to take the Easy Read course."
In this argument, the personnel director of Acme Publishing claims that Acme would stand to gain from improved employee productivity. The improvement would come at the cost of $500 per employee for the enrollment in Easy-Read’s 3-week seminar. To support this claim the director points out that many other companies have claimed to benefit from the seminar, that one student was able to read a long report very quickly, and that another student saw his career advance significantly during the year after the seminar. Scrutiny reveals that it accomplishes little toward supporting the director's claim.
本段采用了标准的Argument开头段结构，即：C – E - F的开头结构，首句概括原文的C(Conclusion)。接下来的一句话概括了原文为了支持他的结论所引用的E(Evidence)。最后尾句中给出开头段到正文段的过渡句，指出原文在逻辑上存在F(Flaw)。
本段作为Argument开头段，具体功能就在发起攻击。首先，概括原文的结论： Acme的personnel director认为接下来分别列举了原文为了支持这个结论引用的证据：对小城镇Leeville和大城市Mason City的对比，论据的归纳用于铺垫出正文段的具体攻击。最后点出原文存在逻辑错误，引出后面的分析。
First of all, just because other companies benefited greatly from the course does not necessarily mean that Acme will benefit in identical ways. Perhaps the type of reading on which the course focuses is not the type in which Acme Publishing employees often engage in at work. Moreover, since Acme is a publishing company its employees are likely to be excellent readers already and may not have the capacity for much more improvement. In this case, the overall improvements would be far less dramatic and if follows that the productive rate would also be a little underwhelming.
Secondly, two success stories are not statistically meaningful. How many companies used the service and found no improvement? Consider the case of the individual whose career advanced after taking the course—any one of a myriad of other factors might explain that advancement.
Thirdly, the director assumes without warrant that the benefits of the course will outweigh its costs. While all of Acme's employees take the 3-week course, Acme's productivity would decline. This decline, along with the substantial fee for the course, could conceivably outweigh the course's long-terms benefits. Without a complete cost-benefit analysis it doesn’t make sense to draw a conclusion.
本段作为正文第三段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：profit类。作者认为原文不能保证课程的benefits outweigh its costs。接下来。作者列举了课程会带来利润下降的一些原因，包括productivity would decline(员工上课期间生产力下降)，substantial fee for the course(课程的巨额支出)。最后说明没有cost-benefit analysis，结论不合理。