First off, thank you for taking the time to read.
[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The common notion that workers are generally apathetic about management issues is false, or at least outdated: a recently published survey indicates that 79percent of the nearly 1200 workers who reponded to survey questionnaires expressed a high level of interest in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs. Discuss how well reasoned... etc]
The editors of a corporation argues that the common notion that workers are apathetic about management issues is false, or outdated. Although the author makes argument with a survey, he makes too sweep a generalization and usues ambiguous words that confuse the readers. Therefore the statement is not logically convincing as it stands.
Firstly, there is a vaguness in the author's language that distorts readers from fully comprehending the conclusion. For instance, the author claims the common notion that workers are generally apathetic towards management issues. However, the author misses to clarify what "generally apatheitc" means. "Generally" can simply refer to over 50 percent of industry workers average or over 80 percent majority of workers in average. Without weaving in definition into his first assumption, the readers are prone to confusion from the beginning statement. Likewise, when referring to survey he says, "a high level of interest," which again distorts the readers by failing to give definition through specific number to substantiate the argument.
Secondly, the author bases his conclusion solely on a survey. Although survey is an ideal way to acknowledge real workers' thoughts, it has negative aspect of easily being skewed, thus giving adverse effect on the editorial team. For instance the author states that a published survey indicates 79 percent of nearly 1200 workers responded to the survey. However, the author does not mention who these workers are, how this survey was conducted, when the survey was conducted, nor what the employees' status was. The survey could have been taken from temporary workers who could have feared being tracked, giving positive responses. In addition, the survey can have been taken from newly employed people who are usually proactive towards company's issues than veteran employees. Simply basing the argument on a survey can lead to flawed conclusion thus losing trust from the readers.
Thirdly, the author only mentions corporate restructuring and redesigning of benefit as the management issues as if those are the only two issues that pertaining management issues. Management issues can include other than these two topics. Every department has their own issues and every employees can have different benefits towards them. These are not the two factors that determine workers' interest in management issues. Workers might be indifferent towards other management issues except for those that directly affects them such as benefit restructuring and redesigning. The author overlooks other issues within the "management issues."
Even though the author attempted to communicate its factual findings through a newsletter, however hastily published with dubious definition, survey sources, and generalization on the topic of management issues. If the author provides with clear definition of "high level" and "generally apathetic, " he can make the argument more logical. In addition, the author can substantiate the argument by articulating survey contents such as sources, contents of sources entaling who the respondents were, and which industry of workers that were surveyd. Lastly, the author needs to think through management issues other than two simple restructuring and redesigning to proclaim that the workers have become interested in management issues. In sum the conclusion is not as logically convincing as it stands.
[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 79percent of the nearly 1200 workers who reponded to survey questionnaires expressed a high level of interest in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs. Discuss how well reasoned... etc]
The editors of a corporation argues that the common notion that workers are apathetic about management issues is false, or outdated. Although the author makes argument with a survey, he makes too sweep a generalization and usues ambiguous words that confuse the readers. Therefore the statement is not logically convincing as it stands.
Firstly, there is a vaguness in the author's language that distorts readers from fully comprehending the conclusion. For instance, the author claims the common notion that workers are generally apathetic towards management issues. However, the author misses to clarify what "generally apatheitc" means. "Generally" can simply refer to over 50 percent of industry workers average or over 80 percent majority of workers in average. Without weaving in definition into his first assumption, the readers are prone to confusion from the beginning statement. Likewise, when referring to survey he says, "a high level of interest," which again distorts the readers by failing to give definition through specific number to substantiate the argument.
Secondly, the author bases his conclusion solely on a survey. Although survey is an ideal way to acknowledge real workers' thoughts, it has negative aspect of easily being skewed, thus giving adverse effect on the editorial team. For instance the author states that a published survey indicates 79 percent of nearly 1200 workers responded to the survey. However, the author does not mention who these workers are, how this survey was conducted, when the survey was conducted, nor what the employees' status was. The survey could have been taken from temporary workers who could have feared being tracked, giving positive responses. In addition, the survey can have been taken from newly employed people who are usually proactive towards company's issues than veteran employees. Simply basing the argument on a survey can lead to flawed conclusion thus losing trust from the readers.
Thirdly, the author only mentions corporate restructuring and redesigning of benefit as the management issues as if those are the only two issues that pertaining management issues. Management issues can include other than these two topics. Every department has their own issues and every employees can have different benefits towards them. These are not the two factors that determine workers' interest in management issues. Workers might be indifferent towards other management issues except for those that directly affects them such as benefit restructuring and redesigning. The author overlooks other issues within the "management issues."
Even though the author attempted to communicate its factual findings through a newsletter, however hastily published with dubious definition, survey sources, and generalization on the topic of management issues. If the author provides with clear definition of "high level" and "generally apathetic, " he can make the argument more logical. In addition, the author can substantiate the argument by articulating survey contents such as sources, contents of sources entaling who the respondents were, and which industry of workers that were surveyd. Lastly, the author needs to think through management issues other than two simple restructuring and redesigning to proclaim that the workers have become interested in management issues. In sum the conclusion is not as logically convincing as it stands.
