Argument:
The following appeared in a memorandum from the directors of a security and safety consulting service.
"Our research indicates that over the past six years no incidents of employee theft have been reported within ten of the companies that have been our clients. In analyzing the security practices of these ten companies, we have further learned that each of them requires its employees to wear photo identification badges while at work. In the future, therefore, we should recommend the use of such identification badges to all of our clients."
Analysis:
The author in the argument states that via research they have come to know that over the past six years no incidents of employee theft have been reported within the companies of their clients. The reason for this is because the employees are wearing photo identification badges. In the preceding statement the author claims that" In the future, therefore, we should recommend the use of such identification badges to all of our clients." 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; we cannot accept his argument as valid.
The Primary issue in authors reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. The author considers the research to be completely true information for employee theft within ten of the companies that have been their clients. Also, the fact stated about the employees wearing photo identification badges while at work, is the reason for decrease in employee theft may not be true for eg: the badges may be worn to know the level of employee i.e. manager, or accountant etc, since in huge companies where the workforce is in great numbers, every one cannot be recognized by face. The authors 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. The author assumes that the data which has been true for the past six years will be true in the current scenario. Furthermore, what has been true for the ten companies, is not to be true for all the clients. Moreover, wearing of photo identification badges cannot be considered as the only security measure which is avoiding employee theft. There may be other security measures, for instance, cameras may be installed to cover all the parts of the companies office, checking may be done of employees when they enter and leave the office etc. The author weakens his argument by failing to provide the explication of links between wearing of photo identification badges to complete security he assumes exists.
While the author does have some key issue's in his premises and assumptions that is not to say that the entire argument is without base. The author can provide examples to support his argument. He can give reasons as to why wearing of security badges has been a successful security measure for the ten companies that are his clients and why it will be successful for his other clients also etc. 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. The comparison made between ten companies and all the clients is not valid. Also, the wearing of security badges is considered as the only security measure which has not lead to employee theft is not true. In addition, whether this practice will be successful in the future cannot be determined now. If the author truly hopes to change his readers mind, 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 the authors poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
The following appeared in a memorandum from the directors of a security and safety consulting service.
"Our research indicates that over the past six years no incidents of employee theft have been reported within ten of the companies that have been our clients. In analyzing the security practices of these ten companies, we have further learned that each of them requires its employees to wear photo identification badges while at work. In the future, therefore, we should recommend the use of such identification badges to all of our clients."
Analysis:
The author in the argument states that via research they have come to know that over the past six years no incidents of employee theft have been reported within the companies of their clients. The reason for this is because the employees are wearing photo identification badges. In the preceding statement the author claims that" In the future, therefore, we should recommend the use of such identification badges to all of our clients." 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; we cannot accept his argument as valid.
The Primary issue in authors reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. The author considers the research to be completely true information for employee theft within ten of the companies that have been their clients. Also, the fact stated about the employees wearing photo identification badges while at work, is the reason for decrease in employee theft may not be true for eg: the badges may be worn to know the level of employee i.e. manager, or accountant etc, since in huge companies where the workforce is in great numbers, every one cannot be recognized by face. The authors 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. The author assumes that the data which has been true for the past six years will be true in the current scenario. Furthermore, what has been true for the ten companies, is not to be true for all the clients. Moreover, wearing of photo identification badges cannot be considered as the only security measure which is avoiding employee theft. There may be other security measures, for instance, cameras may be installed to cover all the parts of the companies office, checking may be done of employees when they enter and leave the office etc. The author weakens his argument by failing to provide the explication of links between wearing of photo identification badges to complete security he assumes exists.
While the author does have some key issue's in his premises and assumptions that is not to say that the entire argument is without base. The author can provide examples to support his argument. He can give reasons as to why wearing of security badges has been a successful security measure for the ten companies that are his clients and why it will be successful for his other clients also etc. 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. The comparison made between ten companies and all the clients is not valid. Also, the wearing of security badges is considered as the only security measure which has not lead to employee theft is not true. In addition, whether this practice will be successful in the future cannot be determined now. If the author truly hopes to change his readers mind, 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 the authors poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
