Analyze an argument
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, 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.
My response:
The argument claims that purchasing Speed-Reading Course has greatly improved productivity of many other companies. Easy Read would cost Acme only $500 per employee-a small price to pay when you consider the benefits. However, it fails to mention several key factors, on the basis on which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that having their employees take the Easy Read Speed-Reading Course has greatly improved productivity. This statement is very obscure and does not highlight evidence how exactly this reading program helped employees to improve the productivity. What is statistics of the company before and after they have started to use this program? Does program guarantee improving of the productivity? Even if employees start to utilize Speed-Reading Course they might be busy doing other things not related to their profession. Hence, program has nothing to do with productivity if employees are not motivated enough. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that there is a data of many companies and concrete results based on this reading program.
Second, the argument claims that 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. This is again a very week and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between Speed-Reading Course and achievements of some employees. Specifically, it is the only one evidence of the progress and it does symbolize whether graduate of the course comprehend entire 500-page report or just physically skimmed the pages. Similarly, another graduate who rose to vise president of the company, was the high speed reading the only one merit to get promotion? Or there were other factors of the career growth? If the argument had provided evidence, that after purchasing this reading course particular employee start to read faster and it was one of the main reasons of the promotion then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, argument states that Easy Read would cost Acme only $500 per employee-a small price to pay when you consider the benefits. Does Acme have enough budget resources to purchase this course for each employee? Does the end justify the means? What are the terms of the productive results? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. Certainly, high speed reading is essential tool for time saving, but it does not guarantee productivity. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
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, 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.
My response:
The argument claims that purchasing Speed-Reading Course has greatly improved productivity of many other companies. Easy Read would cost Acme only $500 per employee-a small price to pay when you consider the benefits. However, it fails to mention several key factors, on the basis on which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that having their employees take the Easy Read Speed-Reading Course has greatly improved productivity. This statement is very obscure and does not highlight evidence how exactly this reading program helped employees to improve the productivity. What is statistics of the company before and after they have started to use this program? Does program guarantee improving of the productivity? Even if employees start to utilize Speed-Reading Course they might be busy doing other things not related to their profession. Hence, program has nothing to do with productivity if employees are not motivated enough. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that there is a data of many companies and concrete results based on this reading program.
Second, the argument claims that 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. This is again a very week and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between Speed-Reading Course and achievements of some employees. Specifically, it is the only one evidence of the progress and it does symbolize whether graduate of the course comprehend entire 500-page report or just physically skimmed the pages. Similarly, another graduate who rose to vise president of the company, was the high speed reading the only one merit to get promotion? Or there were other factors of the career growth? If the argument had provided evidence, that after purchasing this reading course particular employee start to read faster and it was one of the main reasons of the promotion then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, argument states that Easy Read would cost Acme only $500 per employee-a small price to pay when you consider the benefits. Does Acme have enough budget resources to purchase this course for each employee? Does the end justify the means? What are the terms of the productive results? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. Certainly, high speed reading is essential tool for time saving, but it does not guarantee productivity. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
