-
thegmatexperience
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:29 pm
Good morning,
here is another essay. I would really appreciate any kind of constructive critique.
Thanks a lot!
The following appeared in a speech by a stockholder of Consolidated Industries at the company's annual stockholders' meeting:
"In the computer hardware division last year, profits fell significantly below projections, the product line decreased from 20 to only 5 items, and expenditures for employee benefits increased by 15 percent. Nevertheless, Consolidated's board of directors has approved an annual salary of more than $1 million for our company's chief executive officer. The present board members should be replaced because they are unconcerned about the increasing costs of employee benefits and salaries, in spite of the company's problems generating income."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
In the preceeding statement, the author claims that the present board members should be supplanted because they are not concernced about the rising costs of employee benefits and salaries, despite the company's problems generating income.
Though this claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers, his argument cannot be accepted as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises.
At first he states that the profits fell significantly below projections, the product line decreased form 20 to 5 products, expenditures for employee benefits rose by 15%. He doesn't show any specific or absulote numbers on the hardware division's sales or figures of Consolidated Industries and other companies like expenditures for employee benefits to compare them with. As well, the decreased profits can be directly connected to a short economical downturn in this specific region. If available the author could state data like this.
Secondly he says that the Consolidated's board of directors grant the company's chief officer an annual salary of more than $1 million. But we don't know if this is an increase or a decrease in comparison to the former CEO.
The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven.
He assumes that the computer hardware division is the company's main problem concerning its income, while there could be other divisions of the company being very profitable and cover the losses of the hardware division.
Moreover he starts out from the assumption that the board of directors doesn't care about the problems of generating income. This assumptions cannot be held because we don't know about the CEO's achievements in the past. He could be an expert at increasing a division's profitabilty and be entirely worth the money.
The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between the profitabilty of the hardware division and the total income of the company, as well the link between careless attitude of the board of directors and the CEO's salary he assumes exist.
While the author has included various drawbacks into his argument's premises and assumptions, that is not to say that his entire argument is without base.
In order to improve his argument's credability, he could name some concrete numbers regarding the fall of the hardware division's profits, the expenditures for employee benefits or the former CEO's salary.
Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid.
If the author truly hopes to change his readers' minds on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
here is another essay. I would really appreciate any kind of constructive critique.
Thanks a lot!
The following appeared in a speech by a stockholder of Consolidated Industries at the company's annual stockholders' meeting:
"In the computer hardware division last year, profits fell significantly below projections, the product line decreased from 20 to only 5 items, and expenditures for employee benefits increased by 15 percent. Nevertheless, Consolidated's board of directors has approved an annual salary of more than $1 million for our company's chief executive officer. The present board members should be replaced because they are unconcerned about the increasing costs of employee benefits and salaries, in spite of the company's problems generating income."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
In the preceeding statement, the author claims that the present board members should be supplanted because they are not concernced about the rising costs of employee benefits and salaries, despite the company's problems generating income.
Though this claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers, his argument cannot be accepted as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises.
At first he states that the profits fell significantly below projections, the product line decreased form 20 to 5 products, expenditures for employee benefits rose by 15%. He doesn't show any specific or absulote numbers on the hardware division's sales or figures of Consolidated Industries and other companies like expenditures for employee benefits to compare them with. As well, the decreased profits can be directly connected to a short economical downturn in this specific region. If available the author could state data like this.
Secondly he says that the Consolidated's board of directors grant the company's chief officer an annual salary of more than $1 million. But we don't know if this is an increase or a decrease in comparison to the former CEO.
The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven.
He assumes that the computer hardware division is the company's main problem concerning its income, while there could be other divisions of the company being very profitable and cover the losses of the hardware division.
Moreover he starts out from the assumption that the board of directors doesn't care about the problems of generating income. This assumptions cannot be held because we don't know about the CEO's achievements in the past. He could be an expert at increasing a division's profitabilty and be entirely worth the money.
The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between the profitabilty of the hardware division and the total income of the company, as well the link between careless attitude of the board of directors and the CEO's salary he assumes exist.
While the author has included various drawbacks into his argument's premises and assumptions, that is not to say that his entire argument is without base.
In order to improve his argument's credability, he could name some concrete numbers regarding the fall of the hardware division's profits, the expenditures for employee benefits or the former CEO's salary.
Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid.
If the author truly hopes to change his readers' minds on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
