Finally made it in 30 min! But mine still looks short. How can people write so much in such a short time?
The following appeared as part of an article in a computer magazine:
"A year ago Apex Manufacturing bought its managers computers for their homes and paid for telephone connections so that they could access Apex computers and data files from home after normal business hours. Since last year, productivity at Apex has increased by 15 percent. Other companies can learn from the success at Apex: given home computers and access to company resources, employees will work additional hours at home and thereby increase company profits."
Discuss how well reasoned ... etc.
The argument that giving employees home computers and access to company resources will result in increased company profits makes several assumptions without providing evidentiary support necessary in substantiating the argument. In fact, simply stating that one company, Apex Manufacturing, has seen an increase in productivity over the last year after handing out computers to managers does not constitute a logical argument and renders the author's conclusion unacceptable.
It is evident that the argument overlooks some questionable assumptions, seriously undermining the conclusion as a whole. First, the argument assumes that there is a causal relationship between Apex Manufacturing's newly introduced policy and its improvement in productivity. In a weak attempt to support his claim, the author describes how the productivity increase was observed right after Apex Manufacturing offered free home computers and telephone connections. However, the temporal correlation does not prove that one caused the other, nor does it make other potential factors to an increase in productivity, such as enhanced supply chain, irrelevant. Second, the author assumes that Apex Manufacturing is representative of all companies, but this remains unproven. Even if the home computers did cause the increase in productivity in the case of Apex Manufacturing, it cannot be presumed that other companies will have a similar experience. Finally, the author supposes that employees will work additional hours at home once given home computers and access to company resources. But employees may not use those computers for work or may not use them at all. The argument also assumes that employee input of additional hours on work will result in higher profits for a company. However, it could be the case that companies will have to pay a significant amount of financial compensation for the additional hours, which would lead to a decrease in profits.
Overall, the argument is logically flawed and lacks explication of some important issues, which makes it neither sound nor convincing. If the author included the concerns discussed above, his argument would have been much stronger and more persuasive.
Thank you in advance
The following appeared as part of an article in a computer magazine:
"A year ago Apex Manufacturing bought its managers computers for their homes and paid for telephone connections so that they could access Apex computers and data files from home after normal business hours. Since last year, productivity at Apex has increased by 15 percent. Other companies can learn from the success at Apex: given home computers and access to company resources, employees will work additional hours at home and thereby increase company profits."
Discuss how well reasoned ... etc.
The argument that giving employees home computers and access to company resources will result in increased company profits makes several assumptions without providing evidentiary support necessary in substantiating the argument. In fact, simply stating that one company, Apex Manufacturing, has seen an increase in productivity over the last year after handing out computers to managers does not constitute a logical argument and renders the author's conclusion unacceptable.
It is evident that the argument overlooks some questionable assumptions, seriously undermining the conclusion as a whole. First, the argument assumes that there is a causal relationship between Apex Manufacturing's newly introduced policy and its improvement in productivity. In a weak attempt to support his claim, the author describes how the productivity increase was observed right after Apex Manufacturing offered free home computers and telephone connections. However, the temporal correlation does not prove that one caused the other, nor does it make other potential factors to an increase in productivity, such as enhanced supply chain, irrelevant. Second, the author assumes that Apex Manufacturing is representative of all companies, but this remains unproven. Even if the home computers did cause the increase in productivity in the case of Apex Manufacturing, it cannot be presumed that other companies will have a similar experience. Finally, the author supposes that employees will work additional hours at home once given home computers and access to company resources. But employees may not use those computers for work or may not use them at all. The argument also assumes that employee input of additional hours on work will result in higher profits for a company. However, it could be the case that companies will have to pay a significant amount of financial compensation for the additional hours, which would lead to a decrease in profits.
Overall, the argument is logically flawed and lacks explication of some important issues, which makes it neither sound nor convincing. If the author included the concerns discussed above, his argument would have been much stronger and more persuasive.
Thank you in advance
