The following appeared in a memorandum sent by a vice-president of the Nadir Company to the company's human resources department.
"Nadir does not need to adopt the costly 'family-friendly' programs that have been proposed, such as part-time work, work at home, and job-sharing. When these programs were made available at the Summit Company, the leader in its industry, only a small percentage of employees participated in them. Rather than adversely affecting our profitability by offering these programs, we should concentrate on offering extensive training that will enable employees to increase their productivity."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
In the preceding argument, the vice president proposes not to adopt the costly family friendly programs such as part-time work, work at home and job sharing because these programs have not been successful in the case of its competitor, but rather focus on offering extensive training, which will result in improved profitability for the company by improving employee productivity. Though the author's claim may well have some merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable claims and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence that the author offers, we cannot accept his argument as valid.
To begin with, the assumption that the family friendly measures will not work for the Nadir Company because they did not work for the Summit Company is flawed, as even though both the companies are in the same industry, they may be different from each other in many aspects. For instance, in case the number of employees having families and children in the Nadir Company is much higher than that in the Summit Company, the plan may well succeed fin the Nadir Company, although it failed in the Summit Company. To support his claim, the author needs to provide supporting data on the number and percentage of employees, who have families and children, for both the companies.
Second, the author proposed to introduce extensive training without offering any additional support for its success. It is quite possible that extensive training may also not provide the required results. To strengthen his argument, the author needs to provide evidence about why extensive training will succeed in improving employee productivity.
To sum, the argument presented above is unconvincing, and based on unsubstantiated assumptions and premises. We will have to reject the author's claim, unless the author presents additional supporting evidence to back his claim that the family program will not succeed in the Summit Company because it failed in the other company, and also why the extensive training program will succeed.
"Nadir does not need to adopt the costly 'family-friendly' programs that have been proposed, such as part-time work, work at home, and job-sharing. When these programs were made available at the Summit Company, the leader in its industry, only a small percentage of employees participated in them. Rather than adversely affecting our profitability by offering these programs, we should concentrate on offering extensive training that will enable employees to increase their productivity."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
In the preceding argument, the vice president proposes not to adopt the costly family friendly programs such as part-time work, work at home and job sharing because these programs have not been successful in the case of its competitor, but rather focus on offering extensive training, which will result in improved profitability for the company by improving employee productivity. Though the author's claim may well have some merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable claims and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence that the author offers, we cannot accept his argument as valid.
To begin with, the assumption that the family friendly measures will not work for the Nadir Company because they did not work for the Summit Company is flawed, as even though both the companies are in the same industry, they may be different from each other in many aspects. For instance, in case the number of employees having families and children in the Nadir Company is much higher than that in the Summit Company, the plan may well succeed fin the Nadir Company, although it failed in the Summit Company. To support his claim, the author needs to provide supporting data on the number and percentage of employees, who have families and children, for both the companies.
Second, the author proposed to introduce extensive training without offering any additional support for its success. It is quite possible that extensive training may also not provide the required results. To strengthen his argument, the author needs to provide evidence about why extensive training will succeed in improving employee productivity.
To sum, the argument presented above is unconvincing, and based on unsubstantiated assumptions and premises. We will have to reject the author's claim, unless the author presents additional supporting evidence to back his claim that the family program will not succeed in the Summit Company because it failed in the other company, and also why the extensive training program will succeed.
