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, to improve productivity, Acme should require all of our employees to take the Easy Read course."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the advice and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the advice.
In the recommendation to the president of Acme Publishing Company (henceforth, APC), the author argues that ACP should require its employees take the Easy Read Course (henceforth, ERC). The author has come to this conclusion based on the issues of productivity increase. However, the author supports this argument with unwarranted assumptions that, if not properly substantiated with reliable evidence, dramatically weaken the persuasiveness of the advice for the following four reasons.
First of all, how many companies stated that their employees’ productivity has been improved after taking ERC? The conclusion is made under the assumption that the number of companies stated like that is large enough. However, this may not be the case. Perhaps, only a few of companies reported the positive feedback. Or, companies that experienced no difference or worsened results may not be mentioned in this recommendation. If either of the two cases is true, then the advice from the recommendation does not hold water.
Secondly, even if it is true that the number of companies is large enough to be referenced, the author still needs to answer about how fastly the graduate of the course had read a report before taking the course. For example, he may have been able to read a 500-page report nearly in two hours even before taking the course. In addition, were there any other factors that led another graduate of the course to be vice president under a year? There is no information about whether the fast reading skill actually helped her to be promoted so quickly. It is possible that she may have been able to be promoted under a year even without taking the course. If the above scenarios have merits, then the conclusion suggested in the recommendation loses its reliability.
Thirdly, is it possible to have a deep understanding by using the reading skill acquired through the course? We need to evaluate the reading skill based on various measures, not solely on the speed. Though employees can read faster than before, it would be useless if they cannot understand the contents well. Suppose, for example, that an employee is able to read faster than before after taking the ERC, but he or she has to read again and again to fully understand the context. Then, would it be better than before? I believe it is certainly not. If the above example is the case, then the advice of the recommendation cannot be properly evaluated.
Fourthly, is the price of ERC reasonable? Looking over the recommendation, there is no reliable evidence that the benefit of the course exceeds the cost. The company does not have to consider the course if the productivity gain through the course is not worth to pay for ERC. Also, the three-week seminar in Spruce City and a permanent subscription to the Easy Read newsletter may not be necessary for APC. If this is the case, then the fee does not well reveal the value of the course. Therfore, unless the information regarding the cost-benefit analysis and usefulness of the seminar and newsletter is given, it is not possible to evaluate the advice.
All in all, the recommendation, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on the four unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to provide answeres explaining the questions suggested above, it will be possible to fully evaluate the advice that the company should require its employees to take the course.
- 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 26
- The best way to teach — whether as an educator, employer, or parent — is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting y 50
- We learn our most valuable lessons in life from struggling with our limitations rather than from enjoying our successes.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your posit 50
- The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine."In 1975 a wildlife census found that there were seven species of amphibians in Xanadu National Park, with abundant numbers of each species. However, in 2002 only four species of am 66
- The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a journal on environmental issues."Over the past year, the Crust Copper Company (CCC) has purchased over 10,000 square miles of land in the tropical nation of West Fredonia. Mining copper on this la 69
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not OK. need to argue:
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.
//the samples are not big enough. only two samples
argument 3 -- not OK. need to argue:
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.
//if the company is big, it is still a big money for $500 per employee
argument 4 -- not OK, need to argue:
Clearly, to improve productivity, Acme should require all of our employees to take the Easy Read course.
//maybe it is good only for some of employees, not all of them
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 30 15
No. of Words: 572 350
No. of Characters: 2771 1500
No. of Different Words: 241 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.89 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.844 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.78 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 201 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 138 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 103 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 64 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.067 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.685 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.7 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.27 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.484 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.098 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, hence, however, if, look, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, still, then, third, thirdly, well, as to, for example, in addition, first of all, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.6327345309 173% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 72.0 55.5748502994 130% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2853.0 2260.96107784 126% => OK
No of words: 572.0 441.139720559 130% => OK
Chars per words: 4.98776223776 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89045207381 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88181205169 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 255.0 204.123752495 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.445804195804 0.468620217663 95% => OK
syllable_count: 900.9 705.55239521 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 10.0 2.70958083832 369% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 19.7664670659 152% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.8565100645 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.1 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0666666667 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.13333333333 5.70786347227 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 8.20758483034 207% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.290919187969 0.218282227539 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0681917438739 0.0743258471296 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0666644163595 0.0701772020484 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.140928184768 0.128457276422 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0482751892052 0.0628817314937 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.66 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.67 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 98.500998004 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.