-
nandy1984
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:29 pm
- Thanked: 4 times
ESSAY QUESTION:
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.
MY RESPONSE:
The argument concludes that it is safe to say that the free lunch program was a huge success in improving the worker productivity and company should make the program permanent. The above conclusion is based on the evidence that the program encourages employees to remain in the building during the lunch-hour and motivate the employees to work harder throughout the day. The argument is flawed for several reasons.
First, the conclusion that the free lunch program improves the worker productivity purely based on the evidence that the program encouraged the employees to remain in the building is flawed. Amount of time spent by the employee in the work area or the building does not directly add to the worker productivity. The total time employee spends on the lunch in the company building might be the same as he spends when he takes the lunch out. if the preceding condition is true then the employee productivity might not increase. It would make more sense if the author provides information related to the amount of hours the worker spent on the company work in the two case: one when the free lunch is not provided in the company, two when the free lunch is provided. This would help to determine if the free lunch program actually helped.
Second, the author mentions that the free lunch program motivates the employee to work harder throughout the day, but the argument does not state any evidence to substantiate the claim. Statistical data or results about the output of the company would help in coming to this conclusion. For example, if the worker produced more goods in a day when he is provided with the free lunch compared to the day when free lunch is not provided will help to explain this claim.
Third, the argument states that during the same period when the company provided the free lunch program the company's profits increased substantially. But it does not provide any strong evidence that the outcome is not because of other reasons such as reduction in the cost of the raw products during the period, reduction of the expenses by company using the six sigma techniques or cost cutting measures. So we cannot confidently say that the increase in the profits is solely because of the free lunch program.
If the argument considers the above mentioned flaws and provides the evidence related to these flaws it would have made the argument more logically sound.
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.
MY RESPONSE:
The argument concludes that it is safe to say that the free lunch program was a huge success in improving the worker productivity and company should make the program permanent. The above conclusion is based on the evidence that the program encourages employees to remain in the building during the lunch-hour and motivate the employees to work harder throughout the day. The argument is flawed for several reasons.
First, the conclusion that the free lunch program improves the worker productivity purely based on the evidence that the program encouraged the employees to remain in the building is flawed. Amount of time spent by the employee in the work area or the building does not directly add to the worker productivity. The total time employee spends on the lunch in the company building might be the same as he spends when he takes the lunch out. if the preceding condition is true then the employee productivity might not increase. It would make more sense if the author provides information related to the amount of hours the worker spent on the company work in the two case: one when the free lunch is not provided in the company, two when the free lunch is provided. This would help to determine if the free lunch program actually helped.
Second, the author mentions that the free lunch program motivates the employee to work harder throughout the day, but the argument does not state any evidence to substantiate the claim. Statistical data or results about the output of the company would help in coming to this conclusion. For example, if the worker produced more goods in a day when he is provided with the free lunch compared to the day when free lunch is not provided will help to explain this claim.
Third, the argument states that during the same period when the company provided the free lunch program the company's profits increased substantially. But it does not provide any strong evidence that the outcome is not because of other reasons such as reduction in the cost of the raw products during the period, reduction of the expenses by company using the six sigma techniques or cost cutting measures. So we cannot confidently say that the increase in the profits is solely because of the free lunch program.
If the argument considers the above mentioned flaws and provides the evidence related to these flaws it would have made the argument more logically sound.
