-
ddm
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:33 pm
- Location: San Jose,CA
- Thanked: 1 times
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 revenue 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 manger to the sales department and bring in a scientist from the research division to be the manager of the purchasing department.”
The discussion at the meeting mentions that the company is experiencing delays in manufacturing. The manager of the purchasing department is held responsible for this delay. The directors of the company believe that the current manger should be moved from the purchasing department and they should bring in a scientist from the research division. The directors of the company feel that though current manager has an excellent background in general business, psychology and sociology, he does not know much about the properties of metal. The argument is full of gaps and loops since it provides fragmentary evidence. Neither are the premises convincing nor the conclusion compelling.The argument is very evidently the result of hasty generalization. There are many factors that contribute to a weak conclusion and a flawed argument.
The biggest fallacy in the argument is that the directors assume that bringing in a scientist from the research division will solve the problems of the delay in manufacturing. The directors commit a faulty analogy in believing that the scientist from the research division will be able to take general business discussions. Moreover, the scientist may not have any background in the business world,compared to the current manager who is believed to have an excellent business background. Though the scientist may have expert knowledge in purchasing metal, lack of business experience weakens this solution.
The second assumption made by the directors of the company is, that the manger is responsible for the poor planning in purchasing metals. They hold him responsible for the falling revenues of the company. The directors fail to take into view other factors that might be affecting the manufacturing. There may be delays from the other department except the purchasing department. There is also a possibility that the metal provided by the supplier is not up to the mark and the manger is not satisfied with the product.
The argument clearly lacks sufficient evidence and stastical data to make such superogatatory claims. The argument does not provide any statistical evidence of the revenues falling down. There might be various other reasons for the fall in revenue.There might even be delay in some other department.Though the argument looks appealing at first, on closer scrutiny,the argument falls apart on many fronts.The argument relies on certain anecdotal evidence.
The argument is a result of huge speculation in which the directors of the company have assumed a considerable amount of data. Had they taken the above discussed factors into view, it would have rendered the argument irrefutable. But whatever presented fails to provide a holistic picture to the superfluous claims.
" The falling revenue 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 manger to the sales department and bring in a scientist from the research division to be the manager of the purchasing department.”
The discussion at the meeting mentions that the company is experiencing delays in manufacturing. The manager of the purchasing department is held responsible for this delay. The directors of the company believe that the current manger should be moved from the purchasing department and they should bring in a scientist from the research division. The directors of the company feel that though current manager has an excellent background in general business, psychology and sociology, he does not know much about the properties of metal. The argument is full of gaps and loops since it provides fragmentary evidence. Neither are the premises convincing nor the conclusion compelling.The argument is very evidently the result of hasty generalization. There are many factors that contribute to a weak conclusion and a flawed argument.
The biggest fallacy in the argument is that the directors assume that bringing in a scientist from the research division will solve the problems of the delay in manufacturing. The directors commit a faulty analogy in believing that the scientist from the research division will be able to take general business discussions. Moreover, the scientist may not have any background in the business world,compared to the current manager who is believed to have an excellent business background. Though the scientist may have expert knowledge in purchasing metal, lack of business experience weakens this solution.
The second assumption made by the directors of the company is, that the manger is responsible for the poor planning in purchasing metals. They hold him responsible for the falling revenues of the company. The directors fail to take into view other factors that might be affecting the manufacturing. There may be delays from the other department except the purchasing department. There is also a possibility that the metal provided by the supplier is not up to the mark and the manger is not satisfied with the product.
The argument clearly lacks sufficient evidence and stastical data to make such superogatatory claims. The argument does not provide any statistical evidence of the revenues falling down. There might be various other reasons for the fall in revenue.There might even be delay in some other department.Though the argument looks appealing at first, on closer scrutiny,the argument falls apart on many fronts.The argument relies on certain anecdotal evidence.
The argument is a result of huge speculation in which the directors of the company have assumed a considerable amount of data. Had they taken the above discussed factors into view, it would have rendered the argument irrefutable. But whatever presented fails to provide a holistic picture to the superfluous claims.
