The argument proposes that the company should move its current purchasing manager to the sales department and bring a scientist from the research division to be the manager of the purchasing department. To make this inference the argument makes numerous assumptions such as, the current manager's lack of knowledge regarding the properties of metals makes him an unfit candidate for his current job, scientists have the right skills to handle the job of a purchasing manager, the delay caused in manufacturing is the root cause for the loss of revenue, etc. However, the argument fails to provide any substantial evidence to support its assumptions. Thus, the argument, in its current form, seems weak and flawed.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."
First, the argument states that the falling revenue of the company and delays in manufacturing are coincidental. Based on this statement the argument assumes that the cause of reduced revenue is the delay in manufacturing. However, the argument fails to provide any substantial evidence to support its assumption. An alternate explanation of the reduced revenue would be that due to a competitor's cheap and better products, the company might be losing its sales. Hence, due to the loss in sales, the company might be facing loss in revenue. Therefore, without proper evidence and data, it will be unwise to claim that the loss of revenue is entirely due to the delay in manufacturing. The argument should be supported by sales data and related production statistics to validate its assumption.
Second, the argument highlights some skills of the current purchasing manager and later makes a proposal that the manager should be shifted to the sales department. However, the argument, here, fails to analyze whether the current manager's skills match the required skills to handle a sales job. For example, a sales job may require constant interaction with potential clients, hence, a key skill to handle such a job is to have proper communication skills and marketing knowledge. However, the argument doesn't provide any relevant information in this regard. Hence, with given information, proposing that the manager should be shifted to the sales department is not justified.
Third, the argument proposes that a scientist from the research division should be shifted to the purchasing department as the purchasing manager. However, the argument fails to take into account the competence of a scientist with respect to the skills required for a purchasing manager's job. For example, whether a scientist will have the right skills in general business, inventory management, etc., to handle the new position. Also, the argument fails to take into account personal preference of scientists. It may be the case that the scientists would prefer to be in the research division owing to their expertise in that field. Hence, without validating data, the argument's proposal remains unsubstantiated.
Finally, the argument states that the purchasing manager lacks knowledge about the properties of metals. Based on this information, the argument infers that the current manager is incompetent for the job. The argument makes two assumptions to reach this conclusion. It assumes that the knowledge of metal properties is crucial to the manager's role and that the lack of this knowledge is the cause of poor purchase planning. However, the argument fails to provide any supporting information to validate its assumptions. It may well be possible that the knowledge of metal properties is of no importance to a purchase manager. It may be the case that the production department provides the purchase list and the manager simply acts on their requirements. Hence, without any validating information, the argument's assumptions remain unsubstantiated.
In conclusion, the argument due to above-mentioned reasons seems weak. The argument can be strengthened by providing validating information and data as mentioned above, or by toning down the language of its proposal. But in the light of given information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
