The following appeared in the editorial section of a monthly business newsmagazine:
"Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money."

The author's argument is flawed because it is being based on several questionable assumptions. The author states that the degree of injury risk for an occupation directly correlates with the specific wage and when a company invests in workplace safety it results in an overall increase in savings. The argument requires additional evidence and support to prove validity.

The author fails to specify the meaning of "most companies." Many different industries face different levels of environmental dangers. Companies within the oil drilling industry, for example, have employees who work out in the field and have a high risk of injury. However, companies within the financial industry have employees who are primarily office based and sedentary. The author can begin to strengthen his argument by stating what industry these companies are focused in.

Additionally, the author's argument is weakened by failing to isolate occupations where the degree of injury risk does not correlate with wage level. Police officers, fireman, and soldiers are all examples of low paying occupations that face dangerous conditions on a daily basis. The argument can be strengthened by identifying these extremes and excluding them from the argument.

Finally, the assumption that by simply investing in safer workplace conditions can result in savings overall in the future is not justified. Many factors would affect the investment size of such a tactic, to name a few: company size, product, and workplace environment. Assuming that a company will experience savings by investing in workplace safety solely based of the premise is not plausible.

In conclusion, the author's argument is flawed due to several assumptions and the absence of any additional analysis to back such assumptions up.


---------------------------------------------------

This was my first attempt at the essay... not exactly happy with the output here (actually went over in time). I'll have to continue to work on this before my test date in september. Whenever I do a practice test I will be sure to attempt the AWA and post here.

Please let me know what you would score this and what tips I might find useful!

Thanks