-
hey_thr67
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 299
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 10:27 am
- Thanked: 9 times
- Followed by:2 members
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 arguments asserts that implementation of lunch program led to increase the profits of company. The argument is based on the premise that because the lunch program was able to reduce the average time spent on lunch, workers were able to spend more time on work. The argument assumes that number of average hours of work is directly correlated with the profits. Though the argument puts forth premises, these premises don't lead to a sound conclusion. I feel that the author of this article needs more information to support its contention.
The argument mentions two parallel events.First, lunch program was able to increase the average time of employees and second the company increased its profits during the same time. Without any significant information in it, the argument falsely concludes that one event led to other. It might be that these events are not related at all. In order to strengthen itself, the article has to negate all other causes.
The argument doesn't include any data on actual increase in number of hours. Even if the actual increase is substantial, it doesn't necessarily lead to equivalent increase in productivity. If the work in office is not substantial enough, no major increase in productivity will be observed. Also, the definition of productivity changes across different types of industries. For Ex: Unlike in manufacturing industry , in R & D employee spends more time on thinking and experimenting. He/She may necessarily not have to be in office for that.
The article doesn't mention the context of the discussion.
Also, assuming that only increase in productivity can be a cause of increase in profits is not justified. There are many other factors which can lead to increase in profits. For example, during recession, market conditions are not good and companies don't see increase in profits. In that scenario decrease in profits may affect the productivity of employee, giving no motivation to work.
Hence, I strongly feel that in order to substantiate itself, the argument needs to include more information and negate other factors that would make it less questionable.
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 arguments asserts that implementation of lunch program led to increase the profits of company. The argument is based on the premise that because the lunch program was able to reduce the average time spent on lunch, workers were able to spend more time on work. The argument assumes that number of average hours of work is directly correlated with the profits. Though the argument puts forth premises, these premises don't lead to a sound conclusion. I feel that the author of this article needs more information to support its contention.
The argument mentions two parallel events.First, lunch program was able to increase the average time of employees and second the company increased its profits during the same time. Without any significant information in it, the argument falsely concludes that one event led to other. It might be that these events are not related at all. In order to strengthen itself, the article has to negate all other causes.
The argument doesn't include any data on actual increase in number of hours. Even if the actual increase is substantial, it doesn't necessarily lead to equivalent increase in productivity. If the work in office is not substantial enough, no major increase in productivity will be observed. Also, the definition of productivity changes across different types of industries. For Ex: Unlike in manufacturing industry , in R & D employee spends more time on thinking and experimenting. He/She may necessarily not have to be in office for that.
The article doesn't mention the context of the discussion.
Also, assuming that only increase in productivity can be a cause of increase in profits is not justified. There are many other factors which can lead to increase in profits. For example, during recession, market conditions are not good and companies don't see increase in profits. In that scenario decrease in profits may affect the productivity of employee, giving no motivation to work.
Hence, I strongly feel that in order to substantiate itself, the argument needs to include more information and negate other factors that would make it less questionable.
