Can you please rate my essay?
this is hard for me, I hope I did a good job.
The following appeared in the editorial section of a monthly business news magazine:
"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."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion.
You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The author of the article claims that employers may save money by increasing the safety measures of a particular job since this measure can result in a decrease in payroll. The argument is flawed and ends in an unreasonable conclusion that fails to take into account other important variables.
First, risk for injuries in the work place may be reduced by increasing safety measures but they cannot be eliminated. There are jobs that are risky in nature and the better salary for this type of jobs helps to overcome this risks even in the safest workplaces. On the other hand, in addition to bad safety measures, injuries can result from accidents, lack of skill in the worker and other unpredictable variables, even in the safest places these unpredictable variables arise.
Second, the amount of money a worker or a professional is paid depends mostly on his credentials, skill, education and experience. There is a salary threshold that companies must not pass if they want to keep the most skilled and competent workers. Making the workplace a better place is desirable but not necessarily for financial reasons. The best workers may leave the company if payment is cut down, even with the improvement in safety measures.
Finally, the author is assuming that the costs of improving the working conditions and safety measures is at the very least, affordable. It sounds that a significant investment is necessary in order to enforce the author's theory. Even if the plan is successful in retaining the most skilled professionals with lower wages, which is doubtful, the costs of implementing such measures may be too expensive for the company to save money with this plan.
In conclusion, the argument of the author is neither persuasive nor sound because it fails to take into account the cost structure of the suggested plan among other variables. The plan he is suggesting is flawed and makes assumptions on the behavior of workers that, in my opinion, are invalid.
this is hard for me, I hope I did a good job.
The following appeared in the editorial section of a monthly business news magazine:
"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."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion.
You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The author of the article claims that employers may save money by increasing the safety measures of a particular job since this measure can result in a decrease in payroll. The argument is flawed and ends in an unreasonable conclusion that fails to take into account other important variables.
First, risk for injuries in the work place may be reduced by increasing safety measures but they cannot be eliminated. There are jobs that are risky in nature and the better salary for this type of jobs helps to overcome this risks even in the safest workplaces. On the other hand, in addition to bad safety measures, injuries can result from accidents, lack of skill in the worker and other unpredictable variables, even in the safest places these unpredictable variables arise.
Second, the amount of money a worker or a professional is paid depends mostly on his credentials, skill, education and experience. There is a salary threshold that companies must not pass if they want to keep the most skilled and competent workers. Making the workplace a better place is desirable but not necessarily for financial reasons. The best workers may leave the company if payment is cut down, even with the improvement in safety measures.
Finally, the author is assuming that the costs of improving the working conditions and safety measures is at the very least, affordable. It sounds that a significant investment is necessary in order to enforce the author's theory. Even if the plan is successful in retaining the most skilled professionals with lower wages, which is doubtful, the costs of implementing such measures may be too expensive for the company to save money with this plan.
In conclusion, the argument of the author is neither persuasive nor sound because it fails to take into account the cost structure of the suggested plan among other variables. The plan he is suggesting is flawed and makes assumptions on the behavior of workers that, in my opinion, are invalid.
