"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 overall 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 recommendation 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 recommendation.

The argument claims that "Easy Read Speed-Reading Course" helps company to achieve higher productivity if every employee takes a subscription. This claim however seems narrowed and manipulative. The authors attempt to convey his message is somehow distorted bolstered by weak assumption and poor reasoning.

Firstly, the author begins his claim with a supporting premise that-"Many other companies have recently stated that having their employees take the Easy Read Speed-Reading Course has greatly improved productivity". This premise is somehow not concrete. This statement brings forth many questions. It says that many other companies took the course. But the author fails to point which type of companies or whether other companies are as of same field as Acme. Many other companies can be news portals, garment company, IT company or glass company etc. Had he pointed out specific type of company and clarified how it is relevant to Acme, his claim would be strong. Also it looks like author neglected other factors relating to productivity and credited only reading course for the improved productivity. The argument could have been much clearer if he has shown how reading course bolstered other factors and resulted in higher productivity.

Second, the argument mentions that One graduate of the course was able to read 500 page report in only 2hr. This statement doesnt show graduate was able to read 500page all because of his course. Perhaps he might have been a natural fast reader. IF author had presented his reading speed before and after the course,we could believe that the improvement was infact due to the course. One thing to point is that,among all the graduates he only mentions one. Does it mean rest of the graduates had significantly less or no improvement? He again brings up a case where one of the graduates gets promoted to vice-president from manager. There is absolutely no support that this was all due to the course. May be former vicepresident left company without notice and he was appointed as replacement- a pure stroke of luck. It could also be that he was very clever and got his post through trickery. Just from the statement we cannot guarentee that his achievement was all due to the course.

Finally, authors points that fast reading is obviously result in more absorption of information. This seems correct in first glance but it contradicts. There are cases where one can read fast but cannot grasp a thing. On addition he mentions that it only charges $500 for an employee to subscribe to the course. $500- might seem a small amount for some but for some it might be a huge amount. He assumes that every employee has the capacity to bear the cost of $500. He also mentions how the subscription gives incentives like 3 week seminar in Spruce city and Lifelong subscription to easy read newsletter. This might seem like a great deal. What if employee has lots of pending task to do and he cannot make it to seminar. For him paying $500 would seem like wasting money. Also what if the Easy read newsletter is nothing special. I mean it can be that the newsletter doesn't have anything worthy. What if newsletter is full of advertisement, silly post etc. This is no good in any manner. If he had mentioned how those seminars and newsletter further helps employee to strengthen his ability we could reach to a point that it somehow improves productivity.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed and there remains many questions yet to be answered by the author before we consider the stated premise accurate. Author should take all those points into consideration if he wants a strong argument.