Guys.. my first one.l. Heavily relied on the sticky post by myohmy.. Please read and provide me with feedback. Appreciate any advice I can get.. Thanks in advance.
"Workforce Systems, a consulting firm specializing in workplace productivity and efficiency, reports that nearly seventy percent of Maxtech's employees who enrolled in Workforce Systems' one-week seminar last year claim to be more content with their current jobs than prior to enrolling in the seminar. By requiring managers at all large corporations to enroll in the kinds of seminars that Workforce System offers, productivity in our economy's private sector is certain to improve.
Improving economy's productivity in the private sector seems like the author's main concern. He is trying to address this concern by proposing a solution that links job satisfaction to improvement in productivity. Though his claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and solely based on the evidence the author offers we cannot accept his argument as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. He assumes that the results from the training at Maxtech's employees will be the similar for large corporations. Moreover, there is no clarity on why the managers are required to attend these seminars. The author weakens his argument by making assumptions that Maxtech's employees are representative statistical sample of the entire private sector workforce and failing to provide explication of the links between employees at Maxtech being content and improvement in the private sector's productivity.
While the author does have several key issues in his argument's premises and assumptions, that is not to say that the entire argument is without base. He could provide more details on why employees being content causes the economy's productivity to increase. Also, adding information on the Maxtech's employees and how it relates to the large corporations would help better substantiate his argument. 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 unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. The author is not clear in explaining on how the worforce seminars improve the private sector's productivity. If the author truly hopes to change his readers' minds on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
"Workforce Systems, a consulting firm specializing in workplace productivity and efficiency, reports that nearly seventy percent of Maxtech's employees who enrolled in Workforce Systems' one-week seminar last year claim to be more content with their current jobs than prior to enrolling in the seminar. By requiring managers at all large corporations to enroll in the kinds of seminars that Workforce System offers, productivity in our economy's private sector is certain to improve.
Improving economy's productivity in the private sector seems like the author's main concern. He is trying to address this concern by proposing a solution that links job satisfaction to improvement in productivity. Though his claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and solely based on the evidence the author offers we cannot accept his argument as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. He assumes that the results from the training at Maxtech's employees will be the similar for large corporations. Moreover, there is no clarity on why the managers are required to attend these seminars. The author weakens his argument by making assumptions that Maxtech's employees are representative statistical sample of the entire private sector workforce and failing to provide explication of the links between employees at Maxtech being content and improvement in the private sector's productivity.
While the author does have several key issues in his argument's premises and assumptions, that is not to say that the entire argument is without base. He could provide more details on why employees being content causes the economy's productivity to increase. Also, adding information on the Maxtech's employees and how it relates to the large corporations would help better substantiate his argument. 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 unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. The author is not clear in explaining on how the worforce seminars improve the private sector's productivity. If the author truly hopes to change his readers' minds on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
