Prompt:
The following appeared in the editorial section of a corporate newsletter:
"The common notion that workers are generally apathetic about management issues is false, or at least outdated: a recently published survey indicates that 79 percent of the nearly 1,200 workers who responded to survey questionnaires expressed a high level of interest in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs."
The author's argument that workers actually care about management issues is lacking convincing evidence. Is it really a common notion that workers are generally apathetic when it comes to management issues? Additionally, such a small survey cannot be solely relied upon to speak broadly on this issue. Lastly, the author is assuming that "corporate restructuring" and "redesign of benefits programs" are the only management issues that exist for workers to care about. A large amount of additional evidence is needed if this argument is going to withstand opposition.
To start, it is not accurate for the author to state worker apathy as a commonly known phenomenon. While some workers may not be concerned with the dealings of upper management, it is also safe to assume that a descent number of workers are interested. The entire premise, and implied shock value with the cited survey, is contingent on the assumption that everybody was previously in agreement that workers are generally apathetic about management issues.
Secondly, a survey of only 1,200 workers is not statistically significant. If the author cited a survey of ten million workers across all industries, then more credibility would be granted. When addressing a group as large as "workers," 1,200 is merely a rounding error and should not be relied upon as concrete evidence. The author should also cite the source of this data. Are all 1,200 workers from one factory that happens to be very interested in the dealings of management? If this were the case, it is not fair to assume that this one factory is representative of the entire working population. A similar factory in an adjacent state may take the same survey and only have 15% of the workers express a high level of interest.
Finally, the only things that the workers were surveyed on were "corporate restructuring" and "redesign of benefits programs." Perhaps the response rate was so high because the 1,200 workers surveyed were passionate about these two particular issues. Another group of workers may be interested in managerial issues as a whole, but not so concerned with these exact issues. This could feasibly cause a low response rate on the survey despite a strong interest.
To sum everything up, the author's attempt to prove a point is overcome by substantial flaws in the evidence provided. Making assumptions as to what is considered common knowledge, citing insignificantly small surveys, and only including a narrow band of issues on the survey all severely degrade the author's argument. While the provided information does not necessarily disprove the author's claim, it is certainly not sufficient to prove it.
The following appeared in the editorial section of a corporate newsletter:
"The common notion that workers are generally apathetic about management issues is false, or at least outdated: a recently published survey indicates that 79 percent of the nearly 1,200 workers who responded to survey questionnaires expressed a high level of interest in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs."
The author's argument that workers actually care about management issues is lacking convincing evidence. Is it really a common notion that workers are generally apathetic when it comes to management issues? Additionally, such a small survey cannot be solely relied upon to speak broadly on this issue. Lastly, the author is assuming that "corporate restructuring" and "redesign of benefits programs" are the only management issues that exist for workers to care about. A large amount of additional evidence is needed if this argument is going to withstand opposition.
To start, it is not accurate for the author to state worker apathy as a commonly known phenomenon. While some workers may not be concerned with the dealings of upper management, it is also safe to assume that a descent number of workers are interested. The entire premise, and implied shock value with the cited survey, is contingent on the assumption that everybody was previously in agreement that workers are generally apathetic about management issues.
Secondly, a survey of only 1,200 workers is not statistically significant. If the author cited a survey of ten million workers across all industries, then more credibility would be granted. When addressing a group as large as "workers," 1,200 is merely a rounding error and should not be relied upon as concrete evidence. The author should also cite the source of this data. Are all 1,200 workers from one factory that happens to be very interested in the dealings of management? If this were the case, it is not fair to assume that this one factory is representative of the entire working population. A similar factory in an adjacent state may take the same survey and only have 15% of the workers express a high level of interest.
Finally, the only things that the workers were surveyed on were "corporate restructuring" and "redesign of benefits programs." Perhaps the response rate was so high because the 1,200 workers surveyed were passionate about these two particular issues. Another group of workers may be interested in managerial issues as a whole, but not so concerned with these exact issues. This could feasibly cause a low response rate on the survey despite a strong interest.
To sum everything up, the author's attempt to prove a point is overcome by substantial flaws in the evidence provided. Making assumptions as to what is considered common knowledge, citing insignificantly small surveys, and only including a narrow band of issues on the survey all severely degrade the author's argument. While the provided information does not necessarily disprove the author's claim, it is certainly not sufficient to prove it.
