The following appeared as part of an article in a computer magazine:
"A year ago Apex Manufacturing bought its managers computers for their homes and paid for telephone connections so that they could access Apex computers and data files from home after normal business hours. Since last year, productivity at Apex has increased by 15 percent. Other companies can learn from the success at Apex: given home computers and access to cmopany resources, employees will work additional hours at home and thereby increae company profits.:
Discuss how well reasoned
The author of the article argues that other companies can increase profits if they follow the example of Apex Manufacturing, which purchased computers and paid telephone connections at home. The author assumes that the Apex Manufacturing's productivity increased because of the workers worked extra hours at home after the company offered each employees with new computer and telephone connections. Though the author makes connections between productivity and equipment availability and offers advice for other companies, the arugment is specious for several grounds. Thus the conclusion is not as logically convincing as it stands.
First the author makes causal assumption between the company purchasig computers for employees homes and paying for telephone connection and the increased productivity. There might be connetions between working longer hours and increase in productivty, there might be other factors that contributed to the positive outcome. It might not be longer working hours that made the workers to increase productivty, the company might have implented other benefits for employees that caused people to work harder. Without stating other contributing elements within the company, it is hard to make the argument plausible.
Secondly, the author does not give specific numbers to substantiate his argument. The author tersely says, "productivity increased 15 percent since last year." The dates of which the article is published nor the periods of which the author observed the company is not clearly stated. "Since last year" can mean last month or last quarter which gives less plausibility to the arugment as the productivity can fluctuate depending on the duration of the implemented policy. In addtion, 15 percent increase in productity, the author does not give readers clear idea of how productivty is measured: critieria the author used to measure. Number fallacy makes the argument less believable.
Thirdly, the author makes analogy assumption between the Apex Manufacturing and "other" companies. Assuming that the above causal relations and number fallacies are corrected, the author cannot assume that one's policy can have the same effect on other companies. For instance, the Apex Manufacturing might not have much security issues in determining the productivty whereas other IT related, financial firms, or research and development companies have serious implications if the security not adequately monitored. This might result in much negative outcome before increasing the produtivity. In short, the disadvantages outweigh the benefits from the policy.
Furthermore, the source of the written article makes the arugment most doubtful. The article is published from a computer magazine rather which can mean that it be skewed depending on the advertisers. It is highly likely that the advertisers are electronics related companies, thus highlighting positive aspects becomes essential. If the article is published in an independent business magazine the argument might sound more like a news.
In order to improve the stated argument the author needs to give elements that have changed within the company. Rigorous quantification can increase the credibility. Also the author needs give indepth analysis as to which companies are more likely to fit for the policy. Lastly, the author should state how the research was conducted and give possible side effect since the article is being published in a computer magazine. Therefore the argument is not substantiated as it stands.
"A year ago Apex Manufacturing bought its managers computers for their homes and paid for telephone connections so that they could access Apex computers and data files from home after normal business hours. Since last year, productivity at Apex has increased by 15 percent. Other companies can learn from the success at Apex: given home computers and access to cmopany resources, employees will work additional hours at home and thereby increae company profits.:
Discuss how well reasoned
The author of the article argues that other companies can increase profits if they follow the example of Apex Manufacturing, which purchased computers and paid telephone connections at home. The author assumes that the Apex Manufacturing's productivity increased because of the workers worked extra hours at home after the company offered each employees with new computer and telephone connections. Though the author makes connections between productivity and equipment availability and offers advice for other companies, the arugment is specious for several grounds. Thus the conclusion is not as logically convincing as it stands.
First the author makes causal assumption between the company purchasig computers for employees homes and paying for telephone connection and the increased productivity. There might be connetions between working longer hours and increase in productivty, there might be other factors that contributed to the positive outcome. It might not be longer working hours that made the workers to increase productivty, the company might have implented other benefits for employees that caused people to work harder. Without stating other contributing elements within the company, it is hard to make the argument plausible.
Secondly, the author does not give specific numbers to substantiate his argument. The author tersely says, "productivity increased 15 percent since last year." The dates of which the article is published nor the periods of which the author observed the company is not clearly stated. "Since last year" can mean last month or last quarter which gives less plausibility to the arugment as the productivity can fluctuate depending on the duration of the implemented policy. In addtion, 15 percent increase in productity, the author does not give readers clear idea of how productivty is measured: critieria the author used to measure. Number fallacy makes the argument less believable.
Thirdly, the author makes analogy assumption between the Apex Manufacturing and "other" companies. Assuming that the above causal relations and number fallacies are corrected, the author cannot assume that one's policy can have the same effect on other companies. For instance, the Apex Manufacturing might not have much security issues in determining the productivty whereas other IT related, financial firms, or research and development companies have serious implications if the security not adequately monitored. This might result in much negative outcome before increasing the produtivity. In short, the disadvantages outweigh the benefits from the policy.
Furthermore, the source of the written article makes the arugment most doubtful. The article is published from a computer magazine rather which can mean that it be skewed depending on the advertisers. It is highly likely that the advertisers are electronics related companies, thus highlighting positive aspects becomes essential. If the article is published in an independent business magazine the argument might sound more like a news.
In order to improve the stated argument the author needs to give elements that have changed within the company. Rigorous quantification can increase the credibility. Also the author needs give indepth analysis as to which companies are more likely to fit for the policy. Lastly, the author should state how the research was conducted and give possible side effect since the article is being published in a computer magazine. Therefore the argument is not substantiated as it stands.
