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."
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
The argument claims that the delay in manufacturing especially in the procurement of the metal is the main reason for the company's falling revenue. The author further states that this situation can be remedied by changing the manager of the purchasing department of raw materials to a scientist from the research department. This argument has been based on a few assumptions that the author has failed to substantiate with any evidence and is hence weak and unconvincing.
First, the argument readily assumes that the falling revenues are caused by delays in manufacturing. The delay in manufacturing might have been compensated elsewhere in the operation chain and hence the overall time might be the same. It also fails to take into account other factors such as market conditions, increase in competition, decrease in product quality, increase in the cost of materials thereby reducing the profit margins,etc.
Second, the argument assumes that poor planning in the procurement of metal is the sole responsibility of the manager of the department. The delays might have occurred because there might have been shortage of raw material in the market or because the company that delivers the raw material might not have delivered it on time, this time. The transportation conditions and the weather conditions might have also caused the delay.
Third, the argument concludes that changing the manager would solve the problem. The argument fails to link the background of the manager to the poor planning. It assumes that a person who has better knowledge in metals will do better planning than the present one. A scientist might have no knowledge about the intricacies of the business or how to make it more profitable, whereas a person who has a background in business might be able to handle things better and take decisions quickly. If the argument had provided any examples to substantiate this premise, it would have helped in strengthening the argument.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed on many accounts and has not provided enough evidence to convince otherwise. Hence, transferring the manager of the purchasing department to sales department might not be a wise decision and which might even lead to further delays fro the company.
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."
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
The argument claims that the delay in manufacturing especially in the procurement of the metal is the main reason for the company's falling revenue. The author further states that this situation can be remedied by changing the manager of the purchasing department of raw materials to a scientist from the research department. This argument has been based on a few assumptions that the author has failed to substantiate with any evidence and is hence weak and unconvincing.
First, the argument readily assumes that the falling revenues are caused by delays in manufacturing. The delay in manufacturing might have been compensated elsewhere in the operation chain and hence the overall time might be the same. It also fails to take into account other factors such as market conditions, increase in competition, decrease in product quality, increase in the cost of materials thereby reducing the profit margins,etc.
Second, the argument assumes that poor planning in the procurement of metal is the sole responsibility of the manager of the department. The delays might have occurred because there might have been shortage of raw material in the market or because the company that delivers the raw material might not have delivered it on time, this time. The transportation conditions and the weather conditions might have also caused the delay.
Third, the argument concludes that changing the manager would solve the problem. The argument fails to link the background of the manager to the poor planning. It assumes that a person who has better knowledge in metals will do better planning than the present one. A scientist might have no knowledge about the intricacies of the business or how to make it more profitable, whereas a person who has a background in business might be able to handle things better and take decisions quickly. If the argument had provided any examples to substantiate this premise, it would have helped in strengthening the argument.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed on many accounts and has not provided enough evidence to convince otherwise. Hence, transferring the manager of the purchasing department to sales department might not be a wise decision and which might even lead to further delays fro the company.
