In the given memorandum, the director of human resources department concluded that the employee satisfactory was surely improved after HR department's effort on enhancing communication between management team and the staff. To support his idea, he alleged that such communication was ranked top in a previous survey so that this issue must be the cared most by employees. At first glance, this conclusion seems to some extent convincing. However, with close examination, we can find at least 3 logic flaws. I would like to discuss in the following paragraphs to disclose how groundless the allegation is.

First, the director's conclusion is based on a doubtful survey. As the director introduced, the methodology of this survey is to have employees rank the issues according to the importance. To find out whether the survey results are reliable, we need to ask several questions: How many employees are included in this survey? Are they representative to the total staff? Does the questionnaire included all the issues cared by the employees? Is there any possibility that the staff are unwilling to disclose their true thoughts since the survey might require them to sign their names on the questionnaire? Without answers to the questions above, the director can not responsibly conclude that the survey result is reliable enough for the management to draw a decision.

Second, given the survey result is representative and reliable, the communication issue constantly ranked top only suggests that it's considered important, rather than that management need to improve. Very possibly, the management communication is already well carried out in company X, while some other issues ranked second or third, which are still important, are poorly noticed, and are the real cause of dissatisfaction

Last but not least, even if the communication issue is the key to enhance employee moral, and more effort focused on this issue is the right way to solve the problem, however, this does not guarantee that the issue is solved. The director should carefully examine the effect of such actions - maybe through another survey - so as to make sure that every effort they made has achieved the expected result.

In summation, the argument is not as persuasive as it stands. Since the survey has not been proven reliable and the importance of communication does not necessarily suggest that there is any weakness on the issue, we have every reason to cast our doubt on the director's conclusion that enhancing communication is the key to improve morale. Furthermore, it is imprudent for the director to suggest that the campaign that his department held is effective. To convince us, the director needs to demonstrate that employee's satisfaction does rise after the campaign. With such solid evidence, the arguer could further explore on the questionnaire and take some other solutions into account rather than directly jump into suggestion/conclution that… .

Totally disagree:

Some people keep talking about the problem of ..., claiming that ....If there is one-which I leave to doubt-then
it probably came from the misunderstanding or misconduct, rather than the idea itself. *** is one of the most important elements in our modern society. No matter how much we are reluctant to ... or how hard it is to make it happen, we have to adjust ourselves and embrace ..., for a ...

First, in order to reveal the flaws underlying in the assertion above, we need to clarify the definition of ...Let us get down to fundamentals and admit that ...example 1. Therefore, no matter how reluctant we are to admit, ...was, is, and always will be an inevitable trend in our society. Rather than make hopeless effort to ..., people should face the reality and start to ...

Second, ...is hard, but it's never a mission impossible. Besides the emerging new technologies which can help us to make ...easier, ... can also contribute to...example 2.

However, just as the author pointed out, ...sometimes has its side effects, especially when...To avoid ..., we should always stay cautious and keep in mind that...After all...

To sum up, it's my firmly hold view that... It is the ...that drive us forward, equip us with ...Though it sometimes..., we can avoid ... by ...

**********************************************

Agree on both sides:

...and ..., which do you prefer? The arguer in the given material favor ..., which I do admit its advantages. However, just as a coin has its two sides,
...fails to work on ..., whereas it is applaused when...On the contrary, ...sometimes works perfectly. In my opinion, the issue of ...should be discussed case by case.

On the one hand, we do need ..., since ....Reason...For instance,...When under such circumstances, I am the enthusiastic support of ...

On the other hand, ...has its ground. When..., it is important to ...Let us take the case of ... as an example...Considering the ...and ..., people with common sense would obviously agree that...

Maybe you will tease at me like President Harry S Truman saying "Give me a one-hand economist!". However, that's the reality when we face such dilemmas. In some circumstances, we must integrate the both side, such as we put hands together to when we play golf: in the face of extremely complex situations, we do need a combination of ...and ... That is to say, we need to ..., and also ...The rapid development of our society is requiring far more sophisticated problem-solving skills. We have little chance to win with a simplified code of conduct.

Agree

Dear reader, I'm Chinese, and what nationality are you? - Never mind, we are all human beings living in this world village. It is our responsibility to work together and make our home better.

The arguer in the given material suggested that as global citizen, we should first be responsible to our earth, and then take the job to do benefit to our own countries. However, I see no conflicts between the to. If there is any, I believe we can easily solve it, since all people in this world will reach the same long-term target without difficulty.

On the one hand, when we are working on your motherland, we are contributing to the whole human race. For example, a scientist working in his laboratory will share his findings no matter whether he is aiming to "make a better world" or just to contribute to his own country. In such a fast-developing era, science and technology has no boarders. All the invention, with or without penalty, will finally become the fortune of all the people on this planet. In such circumstances, when we protect the environment of our own village, we are doing favor to the whole nature. When we are making every effort to save energy, no matter by taking the underground instead of driving, or by supporting our government to invest on solar energy development, with your ballot and our tax dollars, we are playing our role of a responsibly citizen - both of the nation, and of the world.

On the other hand, when we are saving our planet, we are saving our own country. Nowadays, many people with mutual belief work beyond the border on global affair. For instance, the Green Peace, a global NGO active in many countries, recruit members from all over the world, and serve all over the world. They generally believe that the environment is an organic whole. The pollution caused by low-level manufacturing in China would also poison the shrimps that American people devour.

However, we have to admit that sometimes citizens, as well as nations, could appear selfish and shortsighted while exhausting their environment resources for short-round benefit. In this case, we do need to call for international cooperation to restrict such behaviors and protect our common homeland.

To summarize, I would like to suggest that it is not necessary to distinguish the citizens for one country or for the globe. As long as we keep our mutual homeland, the earth, in mind, we can generally avoid the dilemma, and do what we consider right.