Please rate it ! Many thanks in advance.
The following is part of a memorandum of the Vice-President of Nostrum :
The proposal to increase the health and retirement benefits that our employees receive should not be implemented at this time. An increase of these benefits is not only financially unjustified, since our last year’s profits were lower than those of preceding year, but also unnecessary, since our chief competitor, Panacea, offers its employees lower health and retirement benefits than we currently offer. We can assume that our employee are reasonably satisfied with the health and retirement benefits that they now have since a recent survey indicated that two-thirds of the respondents viewed them favourably.
Thought it may seem at fist glance that the voice-President of Nostrum is right when he affirms that his company should not increase its health and retirement system, a closer examination of the argument described in the memorandum reveals numerous examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning and ill-determined terminology. Indeed, there are several questionable assumptions, resulting in a logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The premise concerning the fact that an increase of the health and retirement benefits the employees of Nostrum receive is financially unjustified since the profits of the company have decreased may be valid. Indeed, it can be understood that there is a link between the company’s financial situation and the benefits given to its employee. However, Nostrum is a profitable company and, as far as we know, his financial situation is comfortable. Thus it can not be argued that the company has not the financial ability to enhance its health and retirement system. Moreover, many studies have proven that a better health and retirement system may induce an increase of the employees’ productivity and hence result in larger profits. A validation of the stated conclusion necessitates evidence that the drawbacks of a better healthcare system – in other words, its cost- outweigh its advantages.
The Vice-President’s second premise, pertaining to the healthcare system provided by the most important competitor of Nostrum, is debatable, and thus results in questionable assumptions. The reasoning omits some important concerns that must be addressed to substantiate the argument. In a weak attempt to support his claim, the author explains that the implementation of a better health and retirement system is unnecessary since the current system is better than that of the chief competitor of Nostrum. No evidence supporting this so-called fact is provided. The mention of the results of a recent survey provides scant evidence that two thirds of the employees are satisfied by the current system. It means that one third of Nostrum’s workers are disappointed by the current system. The fact that such an important part of the employees is not satisfied by the current healthcare system does nothing to bolster the author’s claim.
Because it leaves out several key issues, the argument is not convincing. In order to make the argument more thorough, the Vice-President of Nostrum must demonstrate that the assumptions discussed above are, in fact, true. Thus, evidence supporting his opinions would tighten the link between the premises and the conclusion, making the reasoning more sound.
The following is part of a memorandum of the Vice-President of Nostrum :
The proposal to increase the health and retirement benefits that our employees receive should not be implemented at this time. An increase of these benefits is not only financially unjustified, since our last year’s profits were lower than those of preceding year, but also unnecessary, since our chief competitor, Panacea, offers its employees lower health and retirement benefits than we currently offer. We can assume that our employee are reasonably satisfied with the health and retirement benefits that they now have since a recent survey indicated that two-thirds of the respondents viewed them favourably.
Thought it may seem at fist glance that the voice-President of Nostrum is right when he affirms that his company should not increase its health and retirement system, a closer examination of the argument described in the memorandum reveals numerous examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning and ill-determined terminology. Indeed, there are several questionable assumptions, resulting in a logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The premise concerning the fact that an increase of the health and retirement benefits the employees of Nostrum receive is financially unjustified since the profits of the company have decreased may be valid. Indeed, it can be understood that there is a link between the company’s financial situation and the benefits given to its employee. However, Nostrum is a profitable company and, as far as we know, his financial situation is comfortable. Thus it can not be argued that the company has not the financial ability to enhance its health and retirement system. Moreover, many studies have proven that a better health and retirement system may induce an increase of the employees’ productivity and hence result in larger profits. A validation of the stated conclusion necessitates evidence that the drawbacks of a better healthcare system – in other words, its cost- outweigh its advantages.
The Vice-President’s second premise, pertaining to the healthcare system provided by the most important competitor of Nostrum, is debatable, and thus results in questionable assumptions. The reasoning omits some important concerns that must be addressed to substantiate the argument. In a weak attempt to support his claim, the author explains that the implementation of a better health and retirement system is unnecessary since the current system is better than that of the chief competitor of Nostrum. No evidence supporting this so-called fact is provided. The mention of the results of a recent survey provides scant evidence that two thirds of the employees are satisfied by the current system. It means that one third of Nostrum’s workers are disappointed by the current system. The fact that such an important part of the employees is not satisfied by the current healthcare system does nothing to bolster the author’s claim.
Because it leaves out several key issues, the argument is not convincing. In order to make the argument more thorough, the Vice-President of Nostrum must demonstrate that the assumptions discussed above are, in fact, true. Thus, evidence supporting his opinions would tighten the link between the premises and the conclusion, making the reasoning more sound.
