In conclusion, the letter’s author fails to adequately support the recommendation that Cedar
replace Good-Taste with Discount. To strengthen the argument, the author must provide clear
evidence that Cedar employees are dissatisfied with Good-Taste’s food, and that they would
be more satisfied with Discount’s food. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more
information comparing the two companies’ menus to determine which is more varied and
caters to those with special dietary needs.
Argument 68
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 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 of Acme Publishing claims that Acme would benefit
greatly from improved employee productivity if every employee takes the 3-week Easy-Read
seminar at a cost of $500 per employee. To support this daim the director points out that many
other companies have daimed to benefit from the seminar, that one student was able to read a
long report very quickly afterwards, and that another student saw his career advance
significantly during the year after the seminar. However, close scrutiny of the evidence reveals
that it accomplishes little toward supporting the director’s claim, as discussed below.
First of all, the mere fact that many other companies benefited greatly from the course does
not necessarily mean that Acme will benefit similarly from it. Perhaps the type of reading on
which the course focuses is not the type in which Acme Publishing employees often engage at
work. Moreover, since Acme is a publishing company its employees are likely to be excellent
readers already, and therefore might stand to gain far less from the course than employees of
other types of companies.
Secondly, the two individual success stories the argument cites amount to scant evidence at
best of the course’s effectiveness. Moreover, the director unfairly assumes that their
accomplishments can be attributed to the course. Perhaps both individuals were outstanding
readers before taking the course, and gained nothing from it. Regarding the individual whose
career advanced after taking the course, any one of a myriad of other factors might explain
that advancement. And the individual who was able to read a long report very quickly after the
course did not necessarily absorb a great deal of the material.
216
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 might
decline significantly. This decline, along with the substantial fee for the course, might very well
outweigh the course’s benefits. Without a complete cost-benefit analysis, it is unfair to
conclude that Acme would benefit greatly should all its employees take the course.