-
sophia.aryeetey
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:39 am
- Location: Ghana
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.
The author concludes that it is safe to say that the lunch program implemented by Company Z was a huge success and that the company should make the program permanent based on the premise that the number of hours worked by employees has risen sharply and also company profits has increased substantially. The attribution of one program implementation alone to increased hours worked and profitability does not constitute a logical statement and it certainly does not provide enough evidence to support the author's claims. Even though, the argument has some merits, a number of defects undermine the author's claims and these are explored in the following paragraphs.
First, the author fails to consider that there may have been other relevant factors that may have led to the increase in the number of hours worked by employees and thus the company's profits. It is likely that workers may have chosen to work extra hours due to motivation and incentives from management or just simply because they had deadlines to meet. Hence the increased hours may have generates higher revenue and profit for the company. In addition the increased profits could be due to some factors that the author has not explored such as management decision to cut down cost and maximize profits. The introduction of the lunch program during this same time may have just been a mere co-incidence.
The second flaw in this argument is that the author does not provide evidence to support his claim that the lunch program was a huge success. The arguments merely states the results of a survey that was conducted after the implementation of the lunch program but perhaps the survey was not based on the lunch program. What if the survey conducted was based on management's efforts to ascertain the effectiveness a new management decision such as increase in overtime pay. There is no direct link between the implantation of the lunch program and the survey conducted, hence feedback gotten from the survey can not be linked to the increased number of hours by employees and increased company profits.
Thirdly, in a weak attempt to support his claims, the author assumes that provision of lunch accounts for the longer hours in the office building. The provision of lunch could only keep workers in the office during their lunch break and not beyond that point so evidently there must be some explainable reason why workers are choosing to put in more hours as this is clearly not being captured by the author's premises. The author has obviously arrived at a conjecture.
In sum, to address the error identified in the argument, the author would have to explore relevant factors that may have led to increased hours by workers as well as increased profits for the company as discussed earlier in order to make a valid conclusion.
"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.
The author concludes that it is safe to say that the lunch program implemented by Company Z was a huge success and that the company should make the program permanent based on the premise that the number of hours worked by employees has risen sharply and also company profits has increased substantially. The attribution of one program implementation alone to increased hours worked and profitability does not constitute a logical statement and it certainly does not provide enough evidence to support the author's claims. Even though, the argument has some merits, a number of defects undermine the author's claims and these are explored in the following paragraphs.
First, the author fails to consider that there may have been other relevant factors that may have led to the increase in the number of hours worked by employees and thus the company's profits. It is likely that workers may have chosen to work extra hours due to motivation and incentives from management or just simply because they had deadlines to meet. Hence the increased hours may have generates higher revenue and profit for the company. In addition the increased profits could be due to some factors that the author has not explored such as management decision to cut down cost and maximize profits. The introduction of the lunch program during this same time may have just been a mere co-incidence.
The second flaw in this argument is that the author does not provide evidence to support his claim that the lunch program was a huge success. The arguments merely states the results of a survey that was conducted after the implementation of the lunch program but perhaps the survey was not based on the lunch program. What if the survey conducted was based on management's efforts to ascertain the effectiveness a new management decision such as increase in overtime pay. There is no direct link between the implantation of the lunch program and the survey conducted, hence feedback gotten from the survey can not be linked to the increased number of hours by employees and increased company profits.
Thirdly, in a weak attempt to support his claims, the author assumes that provision of lunch accounts for the longer hours in the office building. The provision of lunch could only keep workers in the office during their lunch break and not beyond that point so evidently there must be some explainable reason why workers are choosing to put in more hours as this is clearly not being captured by the author's premises. The author has obviously arrived at a conjecture.
In sum, to address the error identified in the argument, the author would have to explore relevant factors that may have led to increased hours by workers as well as increased profits for the company as discussed earlier in order to make a valid conclusion.
