aenneb

Even though this is an old post, I would like to add to it that the argument is still in use and I have found exactly the same flaws in the logic of the argument. So I think my essay is not mislead, but I would appreciate some comments: The argument states that Acme Publishing can improve its productivity by investing 500 dollars per employee for a speed-reading course. However, the validity of the argument's assumptions is questionable in several ways. In the following I will outline what questions would need to be answered in order to be able to evaluate the argument's merit thoroughly. The most fundamental assumption of the argument is that the employees of the Acme Publishing Company need to read an excessive amount of material under time pressure. Yet, it is unknown to us whether a considerable amount of Acme Publishing's employees needs to do so regularily. Clearly, speed reading is a time saving if one has to read a lot, but this advantage falls apart if reading is either a minor part of the work to be done or if there is ample time for reading scheduled. Thus, speed reading courses can only be considered a worthwile skill for Acme Publishing's employees if they can make use of this skill in their everyday work. Given that it the above mentioned question can be answered with "yes", the argument does not provide any prove for its implicit assumption that speeded reading results in sufficient comprehension of what has been read. Even though it is stated that fast reading results in an increase of information intake per time, the question remains open whether people can read 500 pages in 2 hours without losing track of the pages' contents. Indeed, it has been shown that profound text understanding requires to think beyond the text, for example by posing open questions about the text's pith to oneself. It is hard to imagine that speed reading would allow time for such strategies fostering in-depth comprehension. As a consequence the argument that speeded reading will result in a more fficient information extraction is uncompelling as long as no prove can be given for ample text comprehension in speeded reading. The author of the argument may oppose those doubts by stressing his example of a speed reading course graduate who rose in position in the year after he had taken that course. However, the course graduate's career and his speed reading skills might simply coincide, begging the question whether his speeded reading was the cause of the fast advance of his career. Given only the information inherent in the argument, no definite conclusion can be drawn about the positive effects of speed reading on individual employee's careers. If all of the information above would be provided and if all of it would support the argument, would this be sufficient for Acme Pubishing to decide in favor of investing into speed reading? Not quiet, as the speed reading course comes at considerable costs. We are given no numbers regarding the net profit that can be made from speed reading skills. Hence, if Acme Publishing aims to increase – or even only to maintain – its profits, its president will need to know whether the costs of the program exceed the potential gains. In sum, there are three logical and one economical consideration, essential for the decision about the speed reading cours,e that are not propperly addressed by the argument. The lack of information regarding the need for speed reading skills for Acme Publishing employees, its usefulness given the work demands and its positive effects on employees careers does not allow a definite recommendation of the speed reading program to the president of Acme Publishing.

Hi, I must say that I find your nicely structured arguments very neat - they hit the core of the issue. However, I struggle with the intro as well as the conclusion... "Of the many proposals to reform the system of remuneration for teachers, one school of thought champions basing the remuneration of teachers on the academic performance of their students." finishes your introduction, but leaves me without a clue where you are heading at - and that's what people are looking for at the end of the intro. Moreover, I think based on your arguments you should not state that "While the force of these arguments is strong and valid". On the contrary, you show that these arguments hold true only at first glance, but that there are many factors that render a positive evaluation of performance-based salaries unrealistic. Your English, by the way, seems absolutely adequate.

Dear mustakim, I am sorry that I have to say this, but I think you missed the point of the statement: This is not about asking any question (which would then nicely fit to your chosen topic "curiosity" and also to your examples), but about questioning accepted wisdom = challenging long-held views. Hence, this would rather be less than a 3, I am afraid, as you did not discuss the issue at hand. Moreover, I would recommend that you try to improve your grammar and sentence construction. Even though I managed to understand what you wanted to say, it was not exactly easy to read the text all the time. Especially: pay attention to the verb forms in the third person singular! (e.g. this questioning habit HAS a massive...)

First, I would like to reply to Ajy Kumar: Your conclusion is a very intelligent one, however, I only find that Licoln was a strong example for your case, while I doubt the argument made about Nigeria. Moreover, you get a bit fuzzy in the end: Also, I found several expressions that were not quite correct, e.g. "It is not fair to say", "But in actual,", "should be mutual understanding between rulers, artists, scientists and well- being" (well-being cannot have an understanding, and I think you rather want to say "agreement" than understanding); a sentence beginning with "Although" does not need a "but" as linking word between its two parts. In sum, I think more precise examples and an introduction to the purpose of the example at the beginning of each paragraph would improve the essay. Here is mine: When judging the greatness of a nation, one can take two approaches: Either one considers the achievements of the nation's most renowned persons or one relies on the overall well-being of its people. While it is easier to quickly retain examples for the former approach, closer consideration reveals that these coincide with exceptional well-being of the ordinary people. Perhaps one of the greatest nations of all times was the Roman Empire. Based on what facts is it considered a great nation? Obviously, the great rulers Julius Caesar and his successor Caesar Augustus have expanded the nation and kept an enormous amount of different people untied as one nation. Hence, at first glance the greatness of Rome seems to be based on its exceptional rulers. However, the unity of the Roman Empire was only held up by the fact that these emperors succeeded in providing its citizens with rights that were revolutionary broad in these times. At the same time, a complex system of trade ensured that the majority of all people within the Roman Empire were provided with everyday goods. Would it have been otherwise, civil wars would have destroyed the inner harmony of the vast empire. Conceivably, one would not remember Rome as a great nation if it had been kept small by internal fights against the centralized power. Thus, the reason why great rulers of Rome were able to create such a great nation was that they ensured their people's well-being. Yet, a different conclusion may be drawn if one looks at a similarly great ancient nation that had tight relationships with the Roman Empire: Egypt. Immediately, ancient Egypt is associated with its great pharaones Nophretete and Cleopatra. Both were not famous for enriching the broad public, but for their pompous buildings and their sovereign leadership. Slavery and poverty were common in ancient Egypt and there is no prove for the general well-being of the common men. Thus, history does provide a case remembered as nation as "great" due to its elite rather than the happiness of the ordinary people. Nonetheless, examples of nowadays great nations can show that the majority of as well as the more recent great nations can be distinguished from others based on the overall quality f life rather than the extraordinary achievements of individuals. One domineering power in the 21st century are the United States of America. Despite the fact that its rulers actions aiming at spreading democracy throughout the world contribute to its name great nation, these actions itself are rooted in a principle dedicated to the public: the pursuit of happiness as a basic human right. At the same time the fact that USA's greatness is judged based on its efforts to spread democracy – the leadership of the public – proves that the most important thing to be considered is the will of the common man. In sum, one may find only rare cases of great nations that earned such a label only due to a few exceptional individuals. In contrast, most great nations stood out not only because of an elite's achievements, but primarily because it aims to provide good living conditions for every citizen. Therefore, the well-being of all a nation's people can be considered more important than the achievements of individuals for judging the greatness of a whole nation. I would appreciate some feedback!