ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in an article in a human resources magazine:
"Six months ago, in an experiment aimed at boosting worker productivity, Company Z started providing free gourmet lunches to its employees. The Company hoped that these office lunches would encourage employees to remain in the building during lunch-hour and motivate employees to work harder throughout the day. A survey found that soon after the lunch program was implemented, the average number of hours worked by most Company Z employees increased dramatically. During this same period, the Company's profits also increased substantially. Thus, it is safe to say that the lunch program was a huge success and that Company Z should make the program permanent."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
YOUR RESPONSE:
How to improve worker productivity has become a hot topic in the United States as of late. There are those who debate workers productivity and those who affirm it, those who assert that workers productivity plays a big role in companies success, and those who believe that workers are barely making an big role in companies success.
In the preceding statement, the article claims that due to the free lunch program increased not only workers productivity but also average number of hours worked by most Company Z employees. In addition during this same period, the Company's profits also increased substantially. The article concludes that in order to boost worker productivity and the success of the company, Company Z should make the program of free gourmet lunches permanent.
Though the articles claim may well have merit, the article presents a poorly reasond argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based soley on the evidence the article offers, we cannot accept his argument as valid.
The primary issue with the articles reasoning lies in its unsubstantiated premises. Company Z´s goal was to increase workers productivity but due to the free lunches the company provided, the average number of hours worked by most Company Z employees increased dramatically. Obviously the opposite happened. Workers productivity went down, and the average working hours increased.
In addition, the article makes several assumptions that remain unproven. Primary, because Company's profits may have increased substantially due to increased sales. Secondly, because the companys profits may also have increased due to the implemention of new technology, which provides better and faster machines. The productivity of the machines could have increased dramatically.
The article weakens its argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between worker productivity and companys success it assumes exists.
While the article does have several key issues in its arguments premises and assumtions, that is not to say the entire argument is without base. The article could have strenghen its argument by providing evidence that workers productivity has increased and that therefore the companys success also has increased.
In sum, the articles illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render its conclusion valid.
The following appeared in an article in a human resources magazine:
"Six months ago, in an experiment aimed at boosting worker productivity, Company Z started providing free gourmet lunches to its employees. The Company hoped that these office lunches would encourage employees to remain in the building during lunch-hour and motivate employees to work harder throughout the day. A survey found that soon after the lunch program was implemented, the average number of hours worked by most Company Z employees increased dramatically. During this same period, the Company's profits also increased substantially. Thus, it is safe to say that the lunch program was a huge success and that Company Z should make the program permanent."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
YOUR RESPONSE:
How to improve worker productivity has become a hot topic in the United States as of late. There are those who debate workers productivity and those who affirm it, those who assert that workers productivity plays a big role in companies success, and those who believe that workers are barely making an big role in companies success.
In the preceding statement, the article claims that due to the free lunch program increased not only workers productivity but also average number of hours worked by most Company Z employees. In addition during this same period, the Company's profits also increased substantially. The article concludes that in order to boost worker productivity and the success of the company, Company Z should make the program of free gourmet lunches permanent.
Though the articles claim may well have merit, the article presents a poorly reasond argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based soley on the evidence the article offers, we cannot accept his argument as valid.
The primary issue with the articles reasoning lies in its unsubstantiated premises. Company Z´s goal was to increase workers productivity but due to the free lunches the company provided, the average number of hours worked by most Company Z employees increased dramatically. Obviously the opposite happened. Workers productivity went down, and the average working hours increased.
In addition, the article makes several assumptions that remain unproven. Primary, because Company's profits may have increased substantially due to increased sales. Secondly, because the companys profits may also have increased due to the implemention of new technology, which provides better and faster machines. The productivity of the machines could have increased dramatically.
The article weakens its argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between worker productivity and companys success it assumes exists.
While the article does have several key issues in its arguments premises and assumtions, that is not to say the entire argument is without base. The article could have strenghen its argument by providing evidence that workers productivity has increased and that therefore the companys success also has increased.
In sum, the articles illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render its conclusion valid.
