The following appeared in the editorial section of a monthly business newsmagazine.
“Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Therefore, it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money.”
The author of the editorial cites that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages of the employees should also increase and concludes that in order to save money; companies need to make the workplace safer. At first this may sound logical, but on closer examination, it reveals that the argument is full of gaps and loop holes since the author puts forward his argument on the basis of just one factor and fails to consider several other important factors. Neither is the evidence convincing nor is the conclusion compelling.
The author provides the increasing risk of physical injury as the only reason for the increase in the wages. However, the author fails to consider numerous other factors which influence the increase in wages.
First of all, the author fails to consider living expense which in fact is one of the most significant factor contributing to the increase in wages paid to the employees. A soldier fighting a battle in a very hostile condition may receive a nominal increase in salary as compared to an administrative clerk who gets transferred from a rural area to a very expensive city like Washington. Clearly, the city in which a person lives has a greater impact on the salary of person than the physical conditions in which the person serves.
Secondly, the education of the employees plays a very significant role in the increase of wages. A software programmer in Bangalore will have large increase in wage as compared to a mine worker in Bihar. Although the miner worker is exposed to very high risk of physical injury as compared to the software programmer.
In his argument the author cites “most companies” but fails to give detailed information about these companies and how these companies can be considered as representatives of the entire industry. The definition of the risk from injury varies from one industry to another. Workers in a finance company may not be exposed to high risk of physical injury but because of the high mental stress, can develop diseases which may cost the company huge loss of money on health care.
The argument is a result of hasty generalization in which author has assumed only one factor to be the cause of increase in wages. Had the author considered the aforementioned points, it would have rendered the argument irrefutable.
“Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Therefore, it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money.”
The author of the editorial cites that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages of the employees should also increase and concludes that in order to save money; companies need to make the workplace safer. At first this may sound logical, but on closer examination, it reveals that the argument is full of gaps and loop holes since the author puts forward his argument on the basis of just one factor and fails to consider several other important factors. Neither is the evidence convincing nor is the conclusion compelling.
The author provides the increasing risk of physical injury as the only reason for the increase in the wages. However, the author fails to consider numerous other factors which influence the increase in wages.
First of all, the author fails to consider living expense which in fact is one of the most significant factor contributing to the increase in wages paid to the employees. A soldier fighting a battle in a very hostile condition may receive a nominal increase in salary as compared to an administrative clerk who gets transferred from a rural area to a very expensive city like Washington. Clearly, the city in which a person lives has a greater impact on the salary of person than the physical conditions in which the person serves.
Secondly, the education of the employees plays a very significant role in the increase of wages. A software programmer in Bangalore will have large increase in wage as compared to a mine worker in Bihar. Although the miner worker is exposed to very high risk of physical injury as compared to the software programmer.
In his argument the author cites “most companies” but fails to give detailed information about these companies and how these companies can be considered as representatives of the entire industry. The definition of the risk from injury varies from one industry to another. Workers in a finance company may not be exposed to high risk of physical injury but because of the high mental stress, can develop diseases which may cost the company huge loss of money on health care.
The argument is a result of hasty generalization in which author has assumed only one factor to be the cause of increase in wages. Had the author considered the aforementioned points, it would have rendered the argument irrefutable.
