I am here to ask you to rate and give me feedback on my first essay writing. Please take into consideration that I am a non-native English speaker.
Thank you very much.
ARGUMENT:
The following appeared in a report presented for discussion at a meeting of the directors of a company that manufactures parts for heavy machinery:
"The falling revenues that the company is experiencing coincide with delays in manufacturing. These delays, in turn, are due in large part to poor planning in purchasing metals. Consider further that the manager of the department that handles purchasing of raw materials has an excellent background in general business, psychology, and sociology, but knows little about the properties of metals. The company should, therefore, move the purchasing manager to the sales department and bring in a scientist from the research division to be manager of the purchasing department."
ESSAY:
The argument is clearly flawed for many reasons. Mainly, the argument assumes that the manager of the metal purchasing division is required to have not business skills but knowledge about metal properties.
Firstly, from the fact that revenues falls coincide with delays in manufacturing does not mean that these delays are the cause of such decreases. Revenue may fall due to several reasons not related with manufacturing delays, such as seasonal decreases in demand. For the argument to be well founded it must be clear that the metal purchasing delays are what is in fact causing the falls in revenue. That could be achieved if it has stated that everything remained constant during the period of revenue decrease except for the fact of the delays in manufacturing, caused by the poor planning in purchasing metals.
Secondly, the manager of the purchasing division has to have, primarily, good business skills because his job is to negotiate the supply terms. Planning purchases have nothing to do with knowledge about metal properties, as the arguments suggests. Hence, bring a scientist from the research division would not, per se, improve the planning and timely purchase of the metals. Unless there was provided some information that a scientist would be more competent in planning the purchase of material than the current manager is the arguments is illogical.
Finally, the arguments assumes that the manager of the purchasing division would have a better performance in the sales department which might be a little farfetched. If the manager is not effective in purchasing there is nothing to support that he would he would be more effective in selling. Both these function require a similar background, thus his background is not a valid reason for his relocation. Moreover, it can hardly be provide any plausible explanation regarding such choice. Hence, the argument present a reasoning that is simple too implausible.
In conclusion, the above-mentioned flaws make this argument is too fragile to be convincing, lacking evidence of its claims, making farfetched assumption and being ill-reasoned.
Thank you very much.
ARGUMENT:
The following appeared in a report presented for discussion at a meeting of the directors of a company that manufactures parts for heavy machinery:
"The falling revenues that the company is experiencing coincide with delays in manufacturing. These delays, in turn, are due in large part to poor planning in purchasing metals. Consider further that the manager of the department that handles purchasing of raw materials has an excellent background in general business, psychology, and sociology, but knows little about the properties of metals. The company should, therefore, move the purchasing manager to the sales department and bring in a scientist from the research division to be manager of the purchasing department."
ESSAY:
The argument is clearly flawed for many reasons. Mainly, the argument assumes that the manager of the metal purchasing division is required to have not business skills but knowledge about metal properties.
Firstly, from the fact that revenues falls coincide with delays in manufacturing does not mean that these delays are the cause of such decreases. Revenue may fall due to several reasons not related with manufacturing delays, such as seasonal decreases in demand. For the argument to be well founded it must be clear that the metal purchasing delays are what is in fact causing the falls in revenue. That could be achieved if it has stated that everything remained constant during the period of revenue decrease except for the fact of the delays in manufacturing, caused by the poor planning in purchasing metals.
Secondly, the manager of the purchasing division has to have, primarily, good business skills because his job is to negotiate the supply terms. Planning purchases have nothing to do with knowledge about metal properties, as the arguments suggests. Hence, bring a scientist from the research division would not, per se, improve the planning and timely purchase of the metals. Unless there was provided some information that a scientist would be more competent in planning the purchase of material than the current manager is the arguments is illogical.
Finally, the arguments assumes that the manager of the purchasing division would have a better performance in the sales department which might be a little farfetched. If the manager is not effective in purchasing there is nothing to support that he would he would be more effective in selling. Both these function require a similar background, thus his background is not a valid reason for his relocation. Moreover, it can hardly be provide any plausible explanation regarding such choice. Hence, the argument present a reasoning that is simple too implausible.
In conclusion, the above-mentioned flaws make this argument is too fragile to be convincing, lacking evidence of its claims, making farfetched assumption and being ill-reasoned.
