GRE作文范文 Argument-22

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

嘉文博譯Sample Essay

"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 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 by requiring all of our employees to take the Easy Read course."

In this argument, the personnel director has recommended to the president of Acme Publishing Company that all employees take a speed-reading course because other companies have reported that having their employees take the course has greatly improved their productivity. Additionally, the personnel director claims that one course graduate read a five-hundred page report in two hours while another course graduate was promoted from assistant manager to vice president in less than one year. He or she also states that the faster that one can read, the more information that one can absorb in one workday. This argument is based on problematic reasoning and it does not follow that the course will automatically bring the same results to Acme Publishing.

First of all, the personnel director claims that other companies have stated that having their employees take the speed-reading course has greatly improved their productivity. Even if this is true, it does not automatically mean that Acme would receive the same benefits from such employee training. It is possible that the speed-reading course is especially suitable for the employees of these other companies whereas it may be unhelpful for Acme employees. Different types of work can receive different types of benefits from such training, and it does not necessarily mean that Acme would benefit from this particular speed-reading course as well.

Secondly, the personnel director cites the examples of one course graduate who was able to read a five-hundred page report in two hours and one who was promoted from assistant manager to vice president in less than one year. In the first instance, simply reading a five hundred-page report in such a short time does not mean that the employee was actually able to comprehend the entire report. The personnel director states that the faster you can read, the more information you can absorb in a workday, but reading and comprehending are two different things entirely. In the second instance, there were likely other factors that contributed to the employee's movement from assistant manager to vice president, simply having taken the speed-reading course does not allow one to move up through the ranks so quickly. Without further evidence directly correlating the taking of the speed-reading course with the reading and comprehension of a five hundred-page report and with moving up quickly to the position of vice president, the argument fails to convince that the speed-reading course is in any way responsible for these events.

Thirdly, the personnel director says that the $500 per employee fee for the course is a small price to pay compared to the benefits that will accrue to Acme. There are some possible personal benefits cited in the argument, but no overall company benefits for Acme are identified. Here the personnel director attempts to draw a line between having all the employees take the speed-reading course and the benefits that Acme will receive, but there are no direct benefits listed for Acme. Other than a personal opinion statement, there is no evidence that Acme will benefit from having its employees take the course.

In summary, some anecdotal evidence is cited but there is no direct causal link demonstrated between the taking of the speed-reading course and any benefits for Acme or its employees. To strengthen the argument, the personnel director should show a cause and effect relationship between the skills that would be developed in the course and the benefits for both the employees and Acme Publishing Company. Without such support, the argument is stating a simple personal opinion.

(589 words)

參考譯文

下文是人事部主任給阿克默出版公司總裁的建議信。

"其他許多公司最近聲稱，讓雇員參加簡(jiǎn)易閱讀快速閱讀課程使他們大大地提高了工作效率。有一位本課程結(jié)業(yè)者可以在兩小時(shí)內(nèi)閱讀一篇500頁的報(bào)告;另一位結(jié)業(yè)者在不到一年內(nèi)從經(jīng)理助理晉升為公司副總裁。顯然，一個(gè)人閱讀得越快，他/她在一個(gè)工作日內(nèi)所獲取的信息量也越多。而且，簡(jiǎn)易閱讀課程僅花費(fèi)每位雇員500美元--一旦考慮到它會(huì)給阿克默公司帶來的利潤(rùn)，這僅是一項(xiàng)微不足道的開支。包含在該費(fèi)用內(nèi)的尚有在Spruce城舉行的三周研討會(huì)以及終生贈(zèng)閱的簡(jiǎn)易閱讀快報(bào)。很清楚，阿克默公司如果要求其所有雇員參加簡(jiǎn)易閱讀課程班學(xué)習(xí)，將會(huì)獲益匪淺。"

在這段論證當(dāng)中，人事部主任給阿克默出版公司總裁建議：公司全部雇員應(yīng)參加一個(gè)快速閱讀課程班的學(xué)習(xí)，其原因是其他公司聲稱讓它們的雇員參加該課程學(xué)習(xí)已極大地改進(jìn)了工作效率。此外，人事部主任還說，有一位該課程的結(jié)業(yè)者能在兩小時(shí)內(nèi)閱讀500頁的報(bào)告，而另一位則在不到一年的時(shí)間內(nèi)從經(jīng)理助理晉升為公司副總裁。他/她還聲稱，一個(gè)人閱讀得越快，在一個(gè)工作日內(nèi)所能獲取的信息量就越多。這一論證基于錯(cuò)誤的推理，而且它不能證明該課程會(huì)自然而然地給阿克默出版公司帶來同樣的效果。

首先，人事部主任說到，其他公司聲稱讓它們的雇員參加這個(gè)快速閱讀課程的學(xué)習(xí)已經(jīng)大大地提高了工作效率。即便果真如此，這并不意味著阿克默公司會(huì)自然而然地從這類員工培訓(xùn)中獲得同樣的效益。很可能這一快速閱讀課程僅僅適合于其他公司的雇員而對(duì)阿克默公司卻無濟(jì)于事。從這類培訓(xùn)中，不同類別的工作得到不同的效益，但這并不必然意味著阿克默公司也會(huì)從這一類專門的快速閱讀課程中受益。

其次，人事部主任舉例說，該課程的一位結(jié)業(yè)者能夠在兩小時(shí)內(nèi)閱讀一篇500頁的報(bào)告而另一位結(jié)業(yè)者在一年內(nèi)已經(jīng)從經(jīng)理助理升職至公司副總裁。在第一例中，在這么短的時(shí)間內(nèi)閱讀一篇500頁的報(bào)告并不意味著這位雇員能夠完全理解這篇報(bào)告。人事部主任聲稱，在一個(gè)工作日中你讀得越快，你獲得的信息就越多。然而，閱讀和理解是完全不同的兩碼事。在第二例中，很可能有其他的因素有助于這位經(jīng)理助理晉升為公司副總裁，單單參加快速閱讀課程班學(xué)習(xí)并不會(huì)使人如此快地在獲得職位晉升。因?yàn)檫@段論證沒有提供進(jìn)一步的證據(jù)來直接說明參加快速閱讀課程與兩小時(shí)內(nèi)閱讀和理解一篇500頁的報(bào)告以及很快升到公司副總裁一職有關(guān)，所以它不能使人確信快速閱讀課程與這些事件有何關(guān)系。第三，人事主任聲稱與阿克默公司將獲得的效益相比，每位雇員500美元的學(xué)費(fèi)只是一筆微不足道的花費(fèi)。在論證中，引用了某些有可能產(chǎn)生的個(gè)人利益，但沒有指明任何對(duì)阿克默公司總體上有益的證據(jù)。這里，人事部主任試圖在讓全部雇員參加快速閱讀培訓(xùn)與阿克默公司將獲得的利益之間劃出一條分界線，但他卻沒有列舉出對(duì)阿克默公司的直接利益為何。除了作為一個(gè)個(gè)人觀點(diǎn)的陳述之外，這段論證并沒有提供任何證據(jù)表明讓其雇員參加快速閱讀培訓(xùn)將會(huì)給阿克默公司帶來益處。

總之，論證過程中引用了某些軼事趣聞式的證據(jù)，但它并沒有說明參加快速閱讀課程班與阿克默公司的利益或其雇員之間有任何因果關(guān)系。為了使他/她的論點(diǎn)更為有力，人事部主任應(yīng)該說明，在該培訓(xùn)班所能幫助形成的技能與阿克默出版公司及其雇員的利益之間存在著因果關(guān)系。因?yàn)闆]有這一論點(diǎn)支持，這段論證僅僅是在陳述個(gè)人的觀點(diǎn)。