-
naiksantosh1
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:57 pm
- Thanked: 1 times
"Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The argument makes key assumptions that make it susceptible for attacks. The argument is not persuasive based on evidence it provides.
First, the argument assumes that safety can be improved at workplace. This assumption is not always true. What if the workers are working in high risk job such as coal mine or oil refineries. In that case, it is impossible to achieve significant improvement in safety even after spending huge money on workplace safety.
Second, the argument assumes that cost of improving the safety at workplace is lower than cost of additional wages paid to worker in absence of safety. This assumption can not be true for all workplaces. In case of mines and oil refineries, cost of improving safety will outweigh cost of providing wages. For example, companies like Oil and Natural Corporation of India (ONGC) has taken several measurements to improve the safety at its rigs, but benefit does not outweigh the cost of investment. The argument proposes the solution that safety at work should be improved only if it makes financial sense to company. Such solution is not ethical for companies well being in long term. The companies like Larsen and Turbo and many others try to achieve zero accidents on the shop floor and reward the employee for their efforts. This helps companies in log term in saving cost and improves productivity. The argument fails to understand the long term benefit of safety over cost.
Third, the argument assumes that if safety is improved, then risk of injury on the job will reduce. In order to prove it, the argument must provide any evidence that physical injury is result of lack of safety at work. Moreover, the argument ignores any other cause of physical injury at the work. What if the injuries are result from lack of training to worker or error from worker? In that case, improving safety will not help the company.
In conclusion, the argument is not persuasive because it ignores key assumptions. To strengthen the argument, it would have provide evidence that safety can be improved, cost of implementation of safety is less than additional cost to company in absence of safety, and injuries are not result of other than lack of safety.
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The argument makes key assumptions that make it susceptible for attacks. The argument is not persuasive based on evidence it provides.
First, the argument assumes that safety can be improved at workplace. This assumption is not always true. What if the workers are working in high risk job such as coal mine or oil refineries. In that case, it is impossible to achieve significant improvement in safety even after spending huge money on workplace safety.
Second, the argument assumes that cost of improving the safety at workplace is lower than cost of additional wages paid to worker in absence of safety. This assumption can not be true for all workplaces. In case of mines and oil refineries, cost of improving safety will outweigh cost of providing wages. For example, companies like Oil and Natural Corporation of India (ONGC) has taken several measurements to improve the safety at its rigs, but benefit does not outweigh the cost of investment. The argument proposes the solution that safety at work should be improved only if it makes financial sense to company. Such solution is not ethical for companies well being in long term. The companies like Larsen and Turbo and many others try to achieve zero accidents on the shop floor and reward the employee for their efforts. This helps companies in log term in saving cost and improves productivity. The argument fails to understand the long term benefit of safety over cost.
Third, the argument assumes that if safety is improved, then risk of injury on the job will reduce. In order to prove it, the argument must provide any evidence that physical injury is result of lack of safety at work. Moreover, the argument ignores any other cause of physical injury at the work. What if the injuries are result from lack of training to worker or error from worker? In that case, improving safety will not help the company.
In conclusion, the argument is not persuasive because it ignores key assumptions. To strengthen the argument, it would have provide evidence that safety can be improved, cost of implementation of safety is less than additional cost to company in absence of safety, and injuries are not result of other than lack of safety.
