The following appeared in a report presented for discussion at a meeting of the directors of a company that
manufactures parts for heavy machinery:
"The falling revenues that the company is experiencing coincide with delays in manufacturing. These delays, in turn,
are due in large part to poor planning in purchasing metals. Consider further that the manager of the department that
handles purchasing of raw materials has an excellent background in general business, psychology, and sociology,
but knows little about the properties of metals. The company should, therefore, move the purchasing manager to the
sales department and bring in a scientist from the research division to be manager of the purchasing department."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Manufacturing industries have traditionally always depended upon the co-ordination between its various departments namely purchase(of raw material) to production to sales. Either of them is affected and the net effect is invariably seen on the revenues. In the above argument, the author is trying to make this very point but the lack of substantial evidences linking the premises to the conclusion make it seriously weak. This essay is meant to highlight these points.
The primary fallacy here lies in the author's assumption of the fact that the problem of poor planning by purchase department can be solved by a scientist expert in the properties of metals. Firstly, it needs to be investigated whether the present manager is responsible or not for the delays in aforementioned purchases. On one hand, the manager is described to be and expert in general business while on the other he is brought into question by blaming him for the lack of those very skills. Also, for proper planning of timely purchase of raw materials, it would be rather unreasonable for us to believe that a proper knowledge of those raw materials is necessary, if required at all. There certainly seems to be a lack somewhere else due to which the industry must have suffered such bouts of poor planning.
In addition, the author makes several other assumptions that remain unproven. The delays in manufacturing seem to have merely coincided with the fall in revenues. Citing the former as the reason for the latter seems to be a case of 'post hoc ergo procter hoc'. To find out the real reason for the fall in revenues, the market conditions for that particular product at that particular point of time must also be known. Maybe, our company in question suffered serious competition from another company which had newly come into this business and was not seen as serious threat by them.
In sum, the author's argument is seriously flawed due to the lack of proper analysis of other possible factors and is based on assumptions without proper evidence. However, if the author wished to revive his readers' interest in his argument, then he could do so by making a some changes. First of all, the link between delay in purchase has to be properly linked to the delay in manufacturing. Similarly, the fact that delay in manufacturing led to the fall in revenue has to be justified by a proper and thorough analysis of market conditions as a whole and also proper statistics need to be included. Finally, the author must justify his suggestion of replacing the present purchase manager with a scientist by proving the latter's credentials for the job. Failing to take care of the above shortcomings, the argument stands no chance of gaining unanimous acceptance.
manufactures parts for heavy machinery:
"The falling revenues that the company is experiencing coincide with delays in manufacturing. These delays, in turn,
are due in large part to poor planning in purchasing metals. Consider further that the manager of the department that
handles purchasing of raw materials has an excellent background in general business, psychology, and sociology,
but knows little about the properties of metals. The company should, therefore, move the purchasing manager to the
sales department and bring in a scientist from the research division to be manager of the purchasing department."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Manufacturing industries have traditionally always depended upon the co-ordination between its various departments namely purchase(of raw material) to production to sales. Either of them is affected and the net effect is invariably seen on the revenues. In the above argument, the author is trying to make this very point but the lack of substantial evidences linking the premises to the conclusion make it seriously weak. This essay is meant to highlight these points.
The primary fallacy here lies in the author's assumption of the fact that the problem of poor planning by purchase department can be solved by a scientist expert in the properties of metals. Firstly, it needs to be investigated whether the present manager is responsible or not for the delays in aforementioned purchases. On one hand, the manager is described to be and expert in general business while on the other he is brought into question by blaming him for the lack of those very skills. Also, for proper planning of timely purchase of raw materials, it would be rather unreasonable for us to believe that a proper knowledge of those raw materials is necessary, if required at all. There certainly seems to be a lack somewhere else due to which the industry must have suffered such bouts of poor planning.
In addition, the author makes several other assumptions that remain unproven. The delays in manufacturing seem to have merely coincided with the fall in revenues. Citing the former as the reason for the latter seems to be a case of 'post hoc ergo procter hoc'. To find out the real reason for the fall in revenues, the market conditions for that particular product at that particular point of time must also be known. Maybe, our company in question suffered serious competition from another company which had newly come into this business and was not seen as serious threat by them.
In sum, the author's argument is seriously flawed due to the lack of proper analysis of other possible factors and is based on assumptions without proper evidence. However, if the author wished to revive his readers' interest in his argument, then he could do so by making a some changes. First of all, the link between delay in purchase has to be properly linked to the delay in manufacturing. Similarly, the fact that delay in manufacturing led to the fall in revenue has to be justified by a proper and thorough analysis of market conditions as a whole and also proper statistics need to be included. Finally, the author must justify his suggestion of replacing the present purchase manager with a scientist by proving the latter's credentials for the job. Failing to take care of the above shortcomings, the argument stands no chance of gaining unanimous acceptance.
