-
ankita1709
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:09 am
- Thanked: 8 times
- Followed by:2 members
Topic - The profitability of Croesus Company, recently restored to private ownership, is a clear indication that businesses fare better under private ownership than under public ownership."
Privatization of the economy, the topic we have in hand, is a controversial topic of discussion for the economists of almost all the countries. In the preceding statement, the author claims that increase in profitability of Croesus COmpany after it restored to private ownership is a clear indicator that business are far better under private ownership than under public ownership. Though this claim may not be completeley wrong, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument based on several assumptions and a questionable premise, and based solely on the evidence that author offers, we cannot accept the argument as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstanatiated premise. The argument lacks the evidence that while the company was in public hands what was it's profit. Author even fails to provide any evidence that the company's profit percentage has increased after gaining private ownership because it can easily be assumed here that the company was always running in profit and there has been no change in the profits after the change of ownership. There is no data which can substantiate that companies which run under public ownership have lower profits than Croesus Company. Hence, the author's premise, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate support and render this conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. For example, it is assumed that there were no other external factors apart from the change of ownership for the increase in profit. It might be that the demand of product has increased in the market or there was new machinery installed in the company which led to increased efficiency and hence increase in profit. Author has also easily assumed that increase in profitability of one privately owned company can be generalised for all other companies as well.It might be a one time phenomenon which is affected by other external factors as well. Therfore, we can say that the author has weaken his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide correlation between profitability and private ownership, which he assumes exists.
While the author undoubtedly has a good point in his argument, that is not to say that the entire argument is without base, the author should provide answers to some of the questions like- how was company performing while in public ownership and how much has the profitability changed after it restored the private ownership. Also how is the working of all other companies similar to Crosesus, on the basis of which he has generalize the statement. He should also mention the other external factors involved in the increase in profit of Croesus Company. Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification of the above issues he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's argument is based on unsupported premise and unsubtantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. It could be considerably strengthed if the author cleraly mentioned all the relevant facts for example all factors that have changed after the change in ownership of Croesus Company, percentage increase in its profits and some other data for other privately owned and publicly owned companies which make the generalization of the statement more relevant. If author truly hopes to change his readers mind on the issue , he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
Privatization of the economy, the topic we have in hand, is a controversial topic of discussion for the economists of almost all the countries. In the preceding statement, the author claims that increase in profitability of Croesus COmpany after it restored to private ownership is a clear indicator that business are far better under private ownership than under public ownership. Though this claim may not be completeley wrong, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument based on several assumptions and a questionable premise, and based solely on the evidence that author offers, we cannot accept the argument as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstanatiated premise. The argument lacks the evidence that while the company was in public hands what was it's profit. Author even fails to provide any evidence that the company's profit percentage has increased after gaining private ownership because it can easily be assumed here that the company was always running in profit and there has been no change in the profits after the change of ownership. There is no data which can substantiate that companies which run under public ownership have lower profits than Croesus Company. Hence, the author's premise, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate support and render this conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. For example, it is assumed that there were no other external factors apart from the change of ownership for the increase in profit. It might be that the demand of product has increased in the market or there was new machinery installed in the company which led to increased efficiency and hence increase in profit. Author has also easily assumed that increase in profitability of one privately owned company can be generalised for all other companies as well.It might be a one time phenomenon which is affected by other external factors as well. Therfore, we can say that the author has weaken his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide correlation between profitability and private ownership, which he assumes exists.
While the author undoubtedly has a good point in his argument, that is not to say that the entire argument is without base, the author should provide answers to some of the questions like- how was company performing while in public ownership and how much has the profitability changed after it restored the private ownership. Also how is the working of all other companies similar to Crosesus, on the basis of which he has generalize the statement. He should also mention the other external factors involved in the increase in profit of Croesus Company. Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification of the above issues he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's argument is based on unsupported premise and unsubtantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. It could be considerably strengthed if the author cleraly mentioned all the relevant facts for example all factors that have changed after the change in ownership of Croesus Company, percentage increase in its profits and some other data for other privately owned and publicly owned companies which make the generalization of the statement more relevant. If author truly hopes to change his readers mind on the issue , he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
