I have less than 3 weeks to go till my exam. Please rate my essay.
PROMPT:
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."
RESPONSE:
This argument claims that the falling revenues for this heavy machinery company is due to the manager of the raw materials purchasing department's lack of knowledge in the properties of metals. Subsequently, the author concludes that the purchasing manager should be reassigned to the sales department and that a scientist from the research division be promoted to the manager position of the purchasing department. While this argument does have some merit, there are several flaws in the reasoning. The author fails to examine other causes of the delays in manufacturing, does not provide any evidence on the scientist's credentials to manage the purchasing department, and no reasoning on why a background on the properties of metals is essential to manage the purchasing department. Therefore this argument's premises fails to prove its own conclusion.
First of all, the author claims that the purchasing manager is the sole reason for falling revenues is a poor use of causality and causation. There could be several reasons for the fall in revenues. For instance, the economic environment could be a reason for the low revenues. Heavy machinery manufacturing could be directly related to the construcion industry, which could be flailing in the current economy.
Secondly, the author mentions that the current purchasing manager has an excellent background in general business, psychology, and sociology, but fails to mention the scientist from the research division's background. The author's argument is weakened when he or she mentions the current manager's "excellent" background. Perhaps the scientist does not have any managerial experience, and will not be able to lead the team. Therefore, more information on the scientist would be essential in order to prove that the scientist would succeed in the role as a purchasing manager.
Thirdly, the argument does not explain why the scientist's knowledge of the properties of metals is essential and would decrease the amount of delays in manufacturing. His knowledge of the properties of metals may help in some ways, but a manager must be able to lead a department. The argument seems to talk highly of the current manager's background as a well-rounded and educated person. A well-rounded background in different disciplines could be a better fit for a management position than a very specific background in just the science of the materials the department purchases. A manager of a department must have people skills, and business skills to succesfully lead a team. The current manager seems to be able to bring those skills to the team, while the scientist could only bring value to the team with his or her knowledge of metals.
In conclusion, the argument has many flaws in its reasoning. The author fails to consider other causes to the falling revenues, fails to mention the scientist's background, and fails to provide adequate evidence on how the scientist would be a better purchasing manager than the current manager. In order to strengthen the argument, the author could provide more evidence on why the scientist may be qualified to become the new purchasing manager. The premises that the author presents in this argument does not accomplish that.
Word count: 516
PROMPT:
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."
RESPONSE:
This argument claims that the falling revenues for this heavy machinery company is due to the manager of the raw materials purchasing department's lack of knowledge in the properties of metals. Subsequently, the author concludes that the purchasing manager should be reassigned to the sales department and that a scientist from the research division be promoted to the manager position of the purchasing department. While this argument does have some merit, there are several flaws in the reasoning. The author fails to examine other causes of the delays in manufacturing, does not provide any evidence on the scientist's credentials to manage the purchasing department, and no reasoning on why a background on the properties of metals is essential to manage the purchasing department. Therefore this argument's premises fails to prove its own conclusion.
First of all, the author claims that the purchasing manager is the sole reason for falling revenues is a poor use of causality and causation. There could be several reasons for the fall in revenues. For instance, the economic environment could be a reason for the low revenues. Heavy machinery manufacturing could be directly related to the construcion industry, which could be flailing in the current economy.
Secondly, the author mentions that the current purchasing manager has an excellent background in general business, psychology, and sociology, but fails to mention the scientist from the research division's background. The author's argument is weakened when he or she mentions the current manager's "excellent" background. Perhaps the scientist does not have any managerial experience, and will not be able to lead the team. Therefore, more information on the scientist would be essential in order to prove that the scientist would succeed in the role as a purchasing manager.
Thirdly, the argument does not explain why the scientist's knowledge of the properties of metals is essential and would decrease the amount of delays in manufacturing. His knowledge of the properties of metals may help in some ways, but a manager must be able to lead a department. The argument seems to talk highly of the current manager's background as a well-rounded and educated person. A well-rounded background in different disciplines could be a better fit for a management position than a very specific background in just the science of the materials the department purchases. A manager of a department must have people skills, and business skills to succesfully lead a team. The current manager seems to be able to bring those skills to the team, while the scientist could only bring value to the team with his or her knowledge of metals.
In conclusion, the argument has many flaws in its reasoning. The author fails to consider other causes to the falling revenues, fails to mention the scientist's background, and fails to provide adequate evidence on how the scientist would be a better purchasing manager than the current manager. In order to strengthen the argument, the author could provide more evidence on why the scientist may be qualified to become the new purchasing manager. The premises that the author presents in this argument does not accomplish that.
Word count: 516
