# data[].attributes.body
The writer keep arguing that sport competitions usually have lots of unfairness. Therefore, doping should be legalized. However, proofing sport competitions are unfair originally does not mean that doping is fair. As there are lots of different medicine to enhancing athletes'performance, legalizing doping will just cause another unfairness.

# data[].attributes.body
he passage made a consumption that like shopping online, checking eBay listings or cruising social network etc are wasting time. Th

# data[].attributes.body
The writer use datum to assume people are productive at home and less productive in workplace. Also the writer use the law of thermodynamics to explain the behaviour of some of the employees. However, it is not correct to predict human since people may not follow the law.

# data[].attributes.body
Not convincing
First, it seems that the writer tries to transfer the focus from discussing whether wasting time is a good thing to discussing whether controlling Web access is reasonable.
Second, it seems that the writer tries to appeal to emotion to convince the readers that restricting web access isn’t a good thing in paragraph 15, but doesn’t give his arguments why restricting web access isn’t a good thing.

# data[].attributes.body
It is not convincing for several reasons. First of all, regardless of what are the employees doing on the internet, it is harmful to the productivity as they spend less time on work.  Many people doing the same thing like spending lots of time through the internet will not change the fact that they are wasting time, which make them unproductive. More than that, the author exaggerated and over generalise the situation. People focusing on prescribed chores can also discover the hot new trend. The sentence has so many assumptions which do not necessarily happen. Last but not least, the example of David Smith is not comprehensive that the experience is only his experience, there is no evidence or experiment to prove the cause and effect relationship.

# data[].attributes.body
Not convincing
In paragraph 8, writer assumes that workers engaged in certain types of wide internet information ,but maybe most of them are just playing games or checking messages.This assumption could be challenged.

In paragraph 9 , the reason of using the internet doesn’t make employees unproductive is omitted

# data[].attributes.body
First, the writer assumed that reading magazines and browsing website are wasting time. However, some content of magazines and website are not meaningless. Therefore, the assumption may be not correct. Moreover, some language is misleading. In paragraph 14, the writer used  the laws of thermodynamics as an example to  explain that people need to waste their time to maintain high productivity. It is not logical to describe human as thermodynamics.

# data[].attributes.body
First, some language is ambiguous. For example, in para10, the writer mentioned that "off-hours activity more than makes up for productivity that is 'lost' to leisurely Web surfing between 9 and 5". However, productivity can be defined in different way.

# data[].attributes.body
There are many statistics shown in the article but they are not well cited. The writer only gave one reference. So the statistics are not reliable.

In paragraph 15, the writer utilised a extreme comparision which is not possible in reality. It may be seen as the logical fallacy 'Black or White'. That can mislead the readers to believe that surfing websites when working is beneficial.

# data[].attributes.body
First, as it mentioned in the Paragraph 7, it simply ignored the downside for employees using the Internet and just comes up a conclusion that wasting time can be good with only looking the bright side.

Second,  the article shows hasty generalization. It just uses the Websense example to prove that wasting time on Internet during working time is acceptable. However, the conclusion just made based on a small example and the writer even not clarify if there are any negative problems in the company.

Third, there are clearly either-or fallacy. The article simply support that if you want to solve the problem, opening access to Internet will be the only way, but in fact, there could be other possible method.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The writer states that "employers tend to spend more time doing work-related Internet tasks at home than non-work-related Internet tasks at office", this shows an assumption that employees are surely productive at home even they are wasting time at the office, but this assumption can be challenged and doubtful.
2. The statistics are not reliable enough. The writer wants to use the evidence that "employees spend average 3.7 hours a week on Web at work and 5.9 hours a week online at home doing work-related tasks" to prove the time wasted at work can be compensated off-work, but the sample size is unknown.
3. There is significant information being omitted in paragraph 7. The writer intentionally skipped the part of potential of harm an employee can caused by Web use, in order to strengthen his stance that wasting time on Web at work is good. Yet, not covering important factor may affect the argument and cause bias.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Outdated information
Most surveys and studies provided in the article were conducted in 2005. Judging from the data it used, which is far away from now, I don't think it is a persuasive argument.

2. neglect problem

# data[].attributes.body
The passage made a consumption that like shopping online, checking eBay listings or cruising social network etc are wasting time. This assumption can be challenged and the article should give a definition of wasting time.
In paragraph 18, the article made conclusion that controlling  workers may lose the workers using  only a single example. It isa  hasty generalisation and do not convince.
In paragraph 22, the "Employees doing relatively rote work sensitive to inefficiency costs" should have some evident to support.

# data[].attributes.body
Take a look at paragraph 7 and you can see that the writer tries to neglect one of the biggest 'downsides' of using the Internet.

Moreover, the term productivity is not well-defined that it's easy to manipulate the term in various way.

In paragraph 8, it's more than an assumption than a truth while the writers fails to provide solid truth employees utilizing their time outside work.

# data[].attributes.body
The article really show us a new, fascinating idea about ‘wasting time’, but there are flaws and loopholes to be filled.

First, the defining linr of ‘wasting time’ mentioned by the writer ,like mindless surf on the net, and work-related tasks is unclearly defined. The writer try to argue in para.15 that workers may explore new ideas while browsing the Internet. However, developing work-related ideas should be categorised as work-related task. So if you come up with new business ideas ,then it is not mindless browsing nor   ‘wasting time’.

Next, the writer put forward unnecessary and irrelevant ideas for his/her arguments. In para.24-25, the writer  try to emphasise that shrinking via mindless Web surfing is not the
consequences of browsing the Net mindlessly itself, but the problem of losing passion and intrinsic motivation. Even though it may be true, that does not make ‘wasting time’ or surfing the Net mindlessly into anything good.

3. The writer only consider a portion of the reality, rather than the whole picture. In para.10-12, the writer defends that work-related tasks done at home can make up for the wasted time at work. First, it simply doesn’t make wasting time at work any good, but only makes lesser evil. There is a inappropriate dichotomy implied. Hence, the writer only see works that can be done at home or internet-related. However, there are way more occupations that can not be done at home, like construction work etc. How can the employees make up for the wasted time after work.

# data[].attributes.body
1. in paragraph6, the writer states that " in the Internet age, the very concept of productivity is be redefined", but the writer does not further give out the new definition of productivity, which weakens the argument.
2.in paragraph 8, the writer claims that "attending trade shows", "reading magazines" and hanging out by the water cooler" during work time can be considered as reasonable use of time. how could this conclusion be reached, because different employer may have different opinions. this is a hasty generalization fallacy.
3.from paragraph 10 to 12, the writer lists the evidence that employees nowadays tend to spend more time doing work-related Internet tasks at home than non-work-related Internet tasks at office. But, how could this kind of evidence be used to demonstrate that wasting time on Internet during working time is a good thing? they have noting to do with each other.
4. in paragraph 14, the writer claims that Web surfing is a good way to relax to keep people from burning out.  Is that true? because it has been proven that surfing the internet will actually make people more tired.
5. from paragraph 18 to 20, the writer claims that controlling employee's Internet use always leads to unhappy and resentful employees and can scare away top job candidates. The writer is committing a slippery slope fallacy here,  and also the evidence from Smith is just an isolated example which is not strong enough to support such a general argument. What's more, even if prohibition of Web use will scare away top job candidates, it can't prove that wasting time on Internet while working is a good thing. there is no direct relationship. this is absolutely a red herring fallacy.