Thanks again for your help! I have made corrections already, see below:

It is argued that if a business wants to prosper, it should hire only people who need less than 6 hours of sleep per night. However, the argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus it does not make a cogent case.

First and foremost, it asserted that the study surveyed 300 male and female Mentian advertising executives, but the background information of the study is vague. Chances are that those surveyed were from only about 15 advertising firms, taking only about less than 0.1 percent of the total number of these firms. In other words, the study was not representative enough. What is more, if these executives were mostly from the firms whose profit margins and growth were not that prosper because their firms had dominated the local markets for a long time, whereas only one group of executives from a certain company had higher profit margins and faster growth, for the sake that the firm they managed opened only one month ago and they were undergoing the fast-growth period, it is likely that the link between the amount of sleep those executives needed and the success of their firms cannot hold water.

Second, it is mentioned that one of the results was from advertising firms studied. In this case, the assumptions and implications seemed to be objective. However, they only did the study in the field of advertising companies, neglecting those like banks, IT companies and so on. It is probable that in these companies, they need their executives and stuff have more sleep to maintain there productivity. For instance, the executives of an Internet company have to hold frequent meetings to check its programmers and engineers` work so that the project can be done in time. Without enough sleep, these executives could not have clear mind to know what was wrong, how to debug, or what to do next. Hence, these executives are usually those who need more sleep to rest their brains so that they could make more profits for the company. Under these circumstances, the argument is not persuasive enough.

In conclusion, although the argument does highlight a possibility, more information is needed to warrant any further action.

Thanks again for your help! I have made corrections already,see below:

It is claimed that imagination outweighs experience, for the sake that people are free to imagine what is possible without being brindled by the establishments. To me, mostly,I disagree with the claim and the reason,while there does exist conditions in which the claim would be objective.

Admittedly,when it comes to the field of art and design, those who established an outstanding genre of art are those who are full of imagination. If they succumb to the experience they learned from others or themselves,they will get stuck by the so-called giants. That`s to say, they cannot fully realize their creativity. Take Picasso as an example. When he was young, he tried to mimic the giants of his time,and enjoyed a big success,whereas the process did not satisfy him. When he grew older,he created Cubism out of his imagination rather than experience. Hence,in this way,both the claim and the reason are valid.

However,our lives are more than art and design. When we take a look at the realm of science and technology,we have to confess that although imagination is a must if we want to make even the smallest improvements,experience is the prerequisite. Without experience,we could hardly work miracles,because we cannot understand what our ancestors did and what lessons they gained. If we only to bury ourselves in our imagination when we make attempts to construct a new theory system or make a breakthrough of technology,it is probable that our ancestors have risked their lives to prove that such imagination is wrong.What`s more,before we want to realize or validate our imagination,we have to gain experience so that we could get to know where to start. From this perspective, the claim does not hold water.

To put all into a nutshell,the pros and cons of both the claim and reason are partly known,we cannot say that claim or reason are totally right or wrong. More information should be accumulated before we can warrant any further action.