I've only made two points here (whereas AWA essays usually have three points), because I couldn't find any other. Please give me some feedback on it too if I missed anything obvious.
*I've used a template I've found on the internet and modified it a bit.
Thanks.
-----------------------------------------
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."
The argument claims that the delays in manufacturing, which coincide with the falling revenues, is because of the manager's poor planning for purchasing metals, and therefore a scientist from a research division should be the new manager of the purchasing department. Stated in this way, the argument fails to consider several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has many flaws.
First, the argument assumes that the delays in manufacturing is largely due to poor planning in purchasing metals, based on the fact that the manager in charge of purchasing doesn't have much knowledge about the properties of metals. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated properly. The author failed to clarify how and to what extent the purchasing of metals is related to the manufacturing itself. Before the author claims that the delays in manufacturing is largely due to the poor planning for purchasing metals, he should have explained how the metal purchasing is associated with the manufacturing process and what impacts the metal purchasing has on the manufacturing. Moreover, the author mentions the manager has an excellent background in general business. Purchasing is part of overall business procedure that requires not only knowledge about products but also relevant strategies. The argument says the manager has great experiences in general business, which means he must not be completely ignorant about how to proceed a business procedure. If the particular purchasing mentioned in the passage solely requires the knowledge for metal properties and don't need any other business expertise, the author's argument would be reasonable. Hence, if the argument had clarified what type of knowledge the particular purchasing in the passage exceptionally needs, it would have sounded much more reasonable and persuasive.
Second, the argument concludes that the manager in charge of purchasing should be transferred to sales department, because he is more resourceful in general business, psychology and sociology. This is again a weak and unsupported claim, as the author failed to clarify the correlation between sales and experiences in psychology and sociology. The author also insists that a new purchasing manager should be brought in from research division, assuming that the poor planning in purchasing metals is due to the lack of expert knowledge. The author, however, again failed to specify whether the scientist from the research division would be the expert for the particular metals mentioned in the passage. Unless the author explains in detail how a scientist from the research division will help the planning of metal purchasing, the author's argument will remain unconvincing.
In summary, the argument is flawed and unreliable. It could have been considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain plan, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.
*I've used a template I've found on the internet and modified it a bit.
Thanks.
-----------------------------------------
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."
The argument claims that the delays in manufacturing, which coincide with the falling revenues, is because of the manager's poor planning for purchasing metals, and therefore a scientist from a research division should be the new manager of the purchasing department. Stated in this way, the argument fails to consider several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has many flaws.
First, the argument assumes that the delays in manufacturing is largely due to poor planning in purchasing metals, based on the fact that the manager in charge of purchasing doesn't have much knowledge about the properties of metals. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated properly. The author failed to clarify how and to what extent the purchasing of metals is related to the manufacturing itself. Before the author claims that the delays in manufacturing is largely due to the poor planning for purchasing metals, he should have explained how the metal purchasing is associated with the manufacturing process and what impacts the metal purchasing has on the manufacturing. Moreover, the author mentions the manager has an excellent background in general business. Purchasing is part of overall business procedure that requires not only knowledge about products but also relevant strategies. The argument says the manager has great experiences in general business, which means he must not be completely ignorant about how to proceed a business procedure. If the particular purchasing mentioned in the passage solely requires the knowledge for metal properties and don't need any other business expertise, the author's argument would be reasonable. Hence, if the argument had clarified what type of knowledge the particular purchasing in the passage exceptionally needs, it would have sounded much more reasonable and persuasive.
Second, the argument concludes that the manager in charge of purchasing should be transferred to sales department, because he is more resourceful in general business, psychology and sociology. This is again a weak and unsupported claim, as the author failed to clarify the correlation between sales and experiences in psychology and sociology. The author also insists that a new purchasing manager should be brought in from research division, assuming that the poor planning in purchasing metals is due to the lack of expert knowledge. The author, however, again failed to specify whether the scientist from the research division would be the expert for the particular metals mentioned in the passage. Unless the author explains in detail how a scientist from the research division will help the planning of metal purchasing, the author's argument will remain unconvincing.
In summary, the argument is flawed and unreliable. It could have been considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain plan, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.
