Hi all

This is my first analysis of an argument. I would be greatful if you can provide me with your valuable feedback. Is the length of response OK or should it be more/less?

Here it goes
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."

My Response

The falling revenues coincide with the delays in manufacturing which in turn are a result of poor planning in purchasing metals. Author further goes on to say that the poor planning in purchasing metals is despite the fact that the manager of the department that handles purchasing of raw materials has an excellent background in general business,psychology, and sociology. Based on these circumstantial evidences author concludes that a) Scientist from research division should manage the purchasing departments b) the current purchasing manager should be moved to sales.

The argument in its current state is marked by numerous flaws. Firstly the author fails to establish a definite causal relationship between the falling revenues and delays in manufacturing. The author uses the mere proximity of time to make a hasty conclusion that revenues are failing because of delays in manufacturing. It might well be the case that the revenues have declined due to a major competitor entering the market or perhaps due to a recent manufacturing process employed by the company that did now go very well with the customers.

Secondly, author attributes the delays in manufacturing to poor planning . If the delay in shipment of raw materials(metals) is due to major unexpected problem such as a labor strike with the main supplier of raw materials then no amount of planning could have forseen the problem. Further, had it not been for the skill of current manager of purchasing department, the company would have not been able to meet half the orders that it met.

Thirdly author while recommending that the problem poor planning can be resolved by replacing the current manager, who has excellent background in general business,
psychology, and sociology, with the scientist from the research division, who has the knowledge of properties of metals, fails to consider the complexities of the material planning process and assumes that the knowledge of properties of metals would be the prime factor involved in efficient planning.

In absence of the information mentioned above the argument stands unconvincing.