-
thegmatexperience
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:29 pm
Hallo,
here is my essay about topic #134. Thank you very much in advance for reading and evaluating! I'd be very happy to get some critique.
The following appeared in a memorandum from a regional supervisor of post office operations:
"During a two-week study of postal operations, the Presto City post office handled about twice as many items as the Lento City post office, even though the cities are about the same size. Moreover, customer satisfaction appears to be higher in Presto City, since the study found fewer complaints regarding the Presto City post office. Therefore, the postmasters at these two offices should exchange assignments: the Presto City postmaster will solve the problems of inefficiency and customer dissatisfaction at the Lento City office while the Lento City postmaster learns firsthand the superior methods of Presto City."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
In the preceeding statement, the author claims that the postmasters should change assignments in order to fix the efficiency and customer dissatisfaction problems as well as to learn from the Presto City post office's routine in handling postal operations.
Though this claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, baesd on several questionable premises and assumptions. If the author's argument is solely based on the evidence he offers, it cannot be accepted as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises.
The author begins with the revelation of a two-week study of postal operations. It reveals that Presto City post office handles twice as many items as the Lento City post office. Just stating a two-week study is not enough to point out a difference in efficiency. The author doesn't name a reference regarding this efficiency. Therefore the reader doesn't know if Lento City post office handles few operations or not.
Furthermore, he says that more complaints regarding the Lento City post office has been counted. Again, this fact is based on the two-week study. He also omits to name particular numbers for complaints handed in by customers.
With a study based on a two-week observation of two post offices in two different city, the author clearly lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addtion, the author starts out from the assumption that the postmasters of the two post offices play a crucial role regarding the post offices' efficiency and customer satisfaction.
The lack of efficiency of Lento City post office can lie in a poor work morale or in insufficient qualifification of the workers. Moreover he assumes that it is necessary to streamline the Lento City post office at all, since he omits to state a reference as mentioned in the second paragraph.
The author therefore weakens his argument by making assumptions that remain unproven.
Becuase the author has included various drawbacks into his argument's premises and assumptions doesn't mean that his entire argument is without base.
If the author would first of all state a reference to compare the performance of the cities' post offices and would provide data form a study conducted over a longer period of time as well as some specific numbers showing the amount of complaints 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.
here is my essay about topic #134. Thank you very much in advance for reading and evaluating! I'd be very happy to get some critique.
The following appeared in a memorandum from a regional supervisor of post office operations:
"During a two-week study of postal operations, the Presto City post office handled about twice as many items as the Lento City post office, even though the cities are about the same size. Moreover, customer satisfaction appears to be higher in Presto City, since the study found fewer complaints regarding the Presto City post office. Therefore, the postmasters at these two offices should exchange assignments: the Presto City postmaster will solve the problems of inefficiency and customer dissatisfaction at the Lento City office while the Lento City postmaster learns firsthand the superior methods of Presto City."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
In the preceeding statement, the author claims that the postmasters should change assignments in order to fix the efficiency and customer dissatisfaction problems as well as to learn from the Presto City post office's routine in handling postal operations.
Though this claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, baesd on several questionable premises and assumptions. If the author's argument is solely based on the evidence he offers, it cannot be accepted as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises.
The author begins with the revelation of a two-week study of postal operations. It reveals that Presto City post office handles twice as many items as the Lento City post office. Just stating a two-week study is not enough to point out a difference in efficiency. The author doesn't name a reference regarding this efficiency. Therefore the reader doesn't know if Lento City post office handles few operations or not.
Furthermore, he says that more complaints regarding the Lento City post office has been counted. Again, this fact is based on the two-week study. He also omits to name particular numbers for complaints handed in by customers.
With a study based on a two-week observation of two post offices in two different city, the author clearly lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addtion, the author starts out from the assumption that the postmasters of the two post offices play a crucial role regarding the post offices' efficiency and customer satisfaction.
The lack of efficiency of Lento City post office can lie in a poor work morale or in insufficient qualifification of the workers. Moreover he assumes that it is necessary to streamline the Lento City post office at all, since he omits to state a reference as mentioned in the second paragraph.
The author therefore weakens his argument by making assumptions that remain unproven.
Becuase the author has included various drawbacks into his argument's premises and assumptions doesn't mean that his entire argument is without base.
If the author would first of all state a reference to compare the performance of the cities' post offices and would provide data form a study conducted over a longer period of time as well as some specific numbers showing the amount of complaints 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.
