Thanks so much!

Also, any suggestions to improve will be welcome too

ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in an article in a human resources magazine:

"Six months ago, in an experiment aimed at boosting worker productivity, Company Z started providing free gourmet lunches to its employees. The Company hoped that these office lunches would encourage employees to remain in the building during lunch-hour and motivate employees to work harder throughout the day. A survey found that soon after the lunch program was implemented, the average number of hours worked by most Company Z employees increased dramatically. During this same period, the Company's profits also increased substantially. Thus, it is safe to say that the lunch program was a huge success and that Company Z should make the program permanent."

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.


YOUR RESPONSE:
The argument concludes that the lunch program that Company Z introduced 6 months ago was a huge success and that Company Z should make the program permanent. It is based on the premise that the program boosted worker productivity by keeping employees on the company premises during lunch-hour and motivating them to work harder throughout the day. Furthermore, a survey found the average number of hours worked by most Company Z employees increased dramatically; during the same period, the company's profits also increased substantially. The argument is flawed due to atleast two questionable assumptions.

Firstly, the survey results, which the argument is based on, shows an increase in the average number of hours worked by employees. This is equated to an increase in productivity. This survey data is suspect. For example, there may be a small group of people who worked longer hours, focussing on on certain highly profitable projects, where as others worked the same number of hours as before. Furthermore, it is important to know how these hours were calculated? If they were solely based on the numbers of hours employees remained in the office, then this surevey does not hold much merit - most of them could have been staying in because they did not have to go out to buy lunch, and not working during that "lunch-hour". However, this does not prove that they are actually working during those hours.

Secondly, the conclusion is based on the assumption that the lunch program helped to increase profitability during the 6 months that is was introduced. There could be a number of other reasons that could have led to this substantial increase in profits during those 6 months. For example, an overall improvement in economy or industry within which Company Z competes may have been the reason for an increase in profitability. If that is the case, the lunch program is neglegible, and its success can not be correlated with the increase in company's profits.

In conclusion, the argument is certainly flawed based on the weakness of the premises and assumptions used. If the author will answer some of the questions raised above, the argument may be strengthened.