-
cmr209
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 11:07 pm
- Location: California
- Thanked: 3 times
The following appeared in the editorial section of a corporate newsletter:
"The common notion that workers are generally apathetic about management issues is false, or at least outdated; a recently published survey indicates that 79 percent of the nearly 1,200 workers who responded to survey questionnaires expressed a high level of interest in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs."
--
The argument is flawed from the beginning. Given the fact that the source is from the editorial section of a corporate newsletter suggest that it is assumed to be creditable, and the editorials sections are not censured by the company for publicity reasons. The reader knows nothing about the author or the type of editorial this is. I would argue that this argument is false, and, in fact, can lead a reader to believe otherwise, should one be so creative.
First off the argument is assuming that the 79 percent of workers who responed to a survey were not given any incentives to answer the way they did. Readers do not know anything about the structure of the survey and what the errors and omissions were. One is left wondering if these are current workers are ones from the past? It doesn't suggest that the findings are scientific or reasonable. Furthermore, if it was a creditable survey from a captive audience, then why not a higher number of participants? So then there were roughly 200 workers who chose not to answer the way the researchers wanted or answered otherwise? This is information that is unknown. Why where they left out and who where they?
Also, what worker in today's age wouldn't be concerned about benefits programs and corporate restructuring? Who wants to lose their job to restructuring and be forced to switch their health care from a HMO to a PPO? This is especially true if those same workers have families to support. However, the reader does not know the demographics of the workers to suggest otherwise. Now if the demographics of workers were all single with no children with a wide variety of age ranges, then yes, one could see that as being significant valid for survey purposes. Since this isn't the case the reader is left to assume that it's a mixed bag of workers.
Finally, the reader has no information about the company to which the workers are operating or the type of industry. If the industry is highly competitive what worker has time to worry about management issues?
In short, this argument lacks merit and is riddled with holes in logic to be remotely believable. Had the argument provided information about the newsletter, the type of survey used to conduct the research, and had the demographics of the workers been disclosed, then and only then could this argument have a chance at being persuasive.
"The common notion that workers are generally apathetic about management issues is false, or at least outdated; a recently published survey indicates that 79 percent of the nearly 1,200 workers who responded to survey questionnaires expressed a high level of interest in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs."
--
The argument is flawed from the beginning. Given the fact that the source is from the editorial section of a corporate newsletter suggest that it is assumed to be creditable, and the editorials sections are not censured by the company for publicity reasons. The reader knows nothing about the author or the type of editorial this is. I would argue that this argument is false, and, in fact, can lead a reader to believe otherwise, should one be so creative.
First off the argument is assuming that the 79 percent of workers who responed to a survey were not given any incentives to answer the way they did. Readers do not know anything about the structure of the survey and what the errors and omissions were. One is left wondering if these are current workers are ones from the past? It doesn't suggest that the findings are scientific or reasonable. Furthermore, if it was a creditable survey from a captive audience, then why not a higher number of participants? So then there were roughly 200 workers who chose not to answer the way the researchers wanted or answered otherwise? This is information that is unknown. Why where they left out and who where they?
Also, what worker in today's age wouldn't be concerned about benefits programs and corporate restructuring? Who wants to lose their job to restructuring and be forced to switch their health care from a HMO to a PPO? This is especially true if those same workers have families to support. However, the reader does not know the demographics of the workers to suggest otherwise. Now if the demographics of workers were all single with no children with a wide variety of age ranges, then yes, one could see that as being significant valid for survey purposes. Since this isn't the case the reader is left to assume that it's a mixed bag of workers.
Finally, the reader has no information about the company to which the workers are operating or the type of industry. If the industry is highly competitive what worker has time to worry about management issues?
In short, this argument lacks merit and is riddled with holes in logic to be remotely believable. Had the argument provided information about the newsletter, the type of survey used to conduct the research, and had the demographics of the workers been disclosed, then and only then could this argument have a chance at being persuasive.
