ARGUMENT:
The following appeared as part of a memorandum from the vice president of Nostrum, a large pharmaceutical corporation: "The proposal to increase the health and retirement benefits that our employees receive should not be implemented at this time. An increase in these benefits is not only financially unjustified, since our last year's profits were lower than those of the preceding year, but also unnecessary, since our chief competitor, Panacea, offers its employees lower health and retirement benefits than we currently offer. We can assume that our employees are reasonably satisfied with the health and retirement benefits that they now have since a recent survey indicated that two-thirds of the respondents viewed them favorably." Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
ANALYSIS:
The argument above states that this is not the right time to increase the health and retirement benefits of the Nostrum's employees as the profits are less this year and the chief competitor is also having lower plans for the same. Moreover, a survey indicates that the two-thirds of respondents are favourable for the same. Though the author's argument may well have a claim, the argument is poorly reasoned, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidences provided, we cannot accept the claim as valid.
The primary issue of the reasoning lies in the in unsubstantiated premises. Stating that the chief competitor is providing lower health and retirement benefits is baseless comparison. The competitor may well have other attractive schemes for its employees that Nostrum may not have. This may attract Nostrum's employees towards the competitor which may create a bigger impact than implementing the proposal. The author's premises, the basis of his conclusion, lack legitimate explication and render the conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. The author provides information about a survey that claims two-thirds of the respondents have viewed them favourably. This does not mean that the all the employees have taken the survey. It could well be a case that only 10% of the employees took up the survey and majority of the remaining 90% are against the claim. Thus the author weakens the argument by making several assumptions and failing to provide the link between X and Y which he assumes to be true.
While the argument have several flaws in the premise and assumptions, that is not to say that the claim is completely invalid. With more information about the pro and cons of policies in the chief competitor, the reason for profit being less over the past year and what kind of survey is taken and how many employees have participated in the survey, the author can make the claim more reliable. Though the argument have many flaws are present, with proper research and clarification as stated above, the author can make an impact on the claim.
In sum, the vice presidents illogical argument based on the unreasoned premises and unsubstantiated assumptions make the argument invalid. If the vice president want get the minds of this employees on this issue, he should majorly restructure the argument, cover the flaws in premises, and explicate the assumptions. Without doing the same, the argument may well get the attention of only few employees.
The following appeared as part of a memorandum from the vice president of Nostrum, a large pharmaceutical corporation: "The proposal to increase the health and retirement benefits that our employees receive should not be implemented at this time. An increase in these benefits is not only financially unjustified, since our last year's profits were lower than those of the preceding year, but also unnecessary, since our chief competitor, Panacea, offers its employees lower health and retirement benefits than we currently offer. We can assume that our employees are reasonably satisfied with the health and retirement benefits that they now have since a recent survey indicated that two-thirds of the respondents viewed them favorably." Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
ANALYSIS:
The argument above states that this is not the right time to increase the health and retirement benefits of the Nostrum's employees as the profits are less this year and the chief competitor is also having lower plans for the same. Moreover, a survey indicates that the two-thirds of respondents are favourable for the same. Though the author's argument may well have a claim, the argument is poorly reasoned, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidences provided, we cannot accept the claim as valid.
The primary issue of the reasoning lies in the in unsubstantiated premises. Stating that the chief competitor is providing lower health and retirement benefits is baseless comparison. The competitor may well have other attractive schemes for its employees that Nostrum may not have. This may attract Nostrum's employees towards the competitor which may create a bigger impact than implementing the proposal. The author's premises, the basis of his conclusion, lack legitimate explication and render the conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. The author provides information about a survey that claims two-thirds of the respondents have viewed them favourably. This does not mean that the all the employees have taken the survey. It could well be a case that only 10% of the employees took up the survey and majority of the remaining 90% are against the claim. Thus the author weakens the argument by making several assumptions and failing to provide the link between X and Y which he assumes to be true.
While the argument have several flaws in the premise and assumptions, that is not to say that the claim is completely invalid. With more information about the pro and cons of policies in the chief competitor, the reason for profit being less over the past year and what kind of survey is taken and how many employees have participated in the survey, the author can make the claim more reliable. Though the argument have many flaws are present, with proper research and clarification as stated above, the author can make an impact on the claim.
In sum, the vice presidents illogical argument based on the unreasoned premises and unsubstantiated assumptions make the argument invalid. If the vice president want get the minds of this employees on this issue, he should majorly restructure the argument, cover the flaws in premises, and explicate the assumptions. Without doing the same, the argument may well get the attention of only few employees.
