This is my first AWA. Kindly review.
"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."
In the aurgument the author claims that it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer because by making the workplace safer the companies can reduce their payroll expences. Though his claim may well have merit, the author, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based soley on the evidence that author offers, we cannot accept his argument as valid.
The primary issue with author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiate premises. The author considers only the financial aspect to make the workplace safer. Clearly, it overlooks the ethical responsibilty of the companies to provide the employee with regular health check-ups and health insurance. The author's premise, the basis of his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumption that remain unproven.First, the author assumes that most of the companies would agree that with the increase in the risk of physical injury on job, the wages of employees should also increase. Their may be few companies that do not concor with the author. Second, the author assumes that the cost of making the workplace safer will outweigh the cost of payroll expense. This statement is a stretch and not substantiate in any way. For example, In some companies if finanacial expense to make their workplace safe costs $1 million verses $1000 increase in the payroll, it would make financial sense to increase the payroll. The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of links between the spending more on making the workplace safe than increasing payroll and saving money.
While the author does have several key issue in his argument's premises and assumption, that is not say that the entire argument is without base. The author should provide the statistics about how many companies are willing to take steps to reduce the risk of physical injury to their employees. He should also mentions all the areas for examples, financial, health, social which the company will consider while estimating the cost. Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstansiate assumptions that render his conclusion valid. Considering just the finacial aspect and lack of cost estimation methods of different companies according to their environment weakens the argument. If author truely hopes to change his readers minds on the issue, he would restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his arguments, and provide evidentary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
"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."
In the aurgument the author claims that it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer because by making the workplace safer the companies can reduce their payroll expences. Though his claim may well have merit, the author, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based soley on the evidence that author offers, we cannot accept his argument as valid.
The primary issue with author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiate premises. The author considers only the financial aspect to make the workplace safer. Clearly, it overlooks the ethical responsibilty of the companies to provide the employee with regular health check-ups and health insurance. The author's premise, the basis of his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumption that remain unproven.First, the author assumes that most of the companies would agree that with the increase in the risk of physical injury on job, the wages of employees should also increase. Their may be few companies that do not concor with the author. Second, the author assumes that the cost of making the workplace safer will outweigh the cost of payroll expense. This statement is a stretch and not substantiate in any way. For example, In some companies if finanacial expense to make their workplace safe costs $1 million verses $1000 increase in the payroll, it would make financial sense to increase the payroll. The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of links between the spending more on making the workplace safe than increasing payroll and saving money.
While the author does have several key issue in his argument's premises and assumption, that is not say that the entire argument is without base. The author should provide the statistics about how many companies are willing to take steps to reduce the risk of physical injury to their employees. He should also mentions all the areas for examples, financial, health, social which the company will consider while estimating the cost. Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstansiate assumptions that render his conclusion valid. Considering just the finacial aspect and lack of cost estimation methods of different companies according to their environment weakens the argument. If author truely hopes to change his readers minds on the issue, he would restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his arguments, and provide evidentary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
