Topic
The following appeared in a memorandum from the director of research and development at Ready-to-Ware, a software engineering firm.
The package of benefits and incentives that Ready-to-Ware offers to professional staff is too costly. Our quarterly profits have declined since the package was introduced two years ago, at the time of our incorporation. Moreover, the package had little positive effect, as we have had only marginal success in recruiting and training high-quality professional staff. To become more profitable again, Ready-to-Ware should, therefore, offer the reduced benefits package that was in place two years ago and use the savings to fund our current research and development initiatives.
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
---
Essay:
This argument states that software engineering firm Ready-to-Ware should offer the same reduced benefits package offered two years ago and use the savings to fund research and develop initatives. As a result, the company will see enhanced profits, as the author believes the benefits and incentives package for professional staff currently is too costly. With this assertion, the author falsely relies on flawed arguments to formulate a conclusion with no clear evidence.
First, the author falsely assumes that the introduction of the “costly” incentive package two years ago was the cause and only factor influencing the decline in quarterly profits. However, correlation does not necessarily demonstrate causation. In this case, introducing the incentive package may have happened to occur at the same time profits began to decline. Additionally, the author fails to consider other factors influencing declining profits. For example, the company’s incorporation could have also caused the company’s profit to diminish. The author could address these issues to improve this cause-effect premise. The argument could include data from other similar companies losing profits from incentives packages, or show how incorporation has improved profits as a factor of its own.
Second, the author is quick to assume that the package had little positive effect, supporting this statement with the fact that the company only had marginal success in recruiting and training high-quality professional staff. Success of benefits packages, in other words, is solely dependent upon recruiting and training. It is possible that benefits packages succeed in improving employee satisfaction and in turn boosting company productivity. To better substantiate this presumption, the author could have mentioned that the company’s main goal in expanding its benefits package was to improve recruiting and training of staff and that no other factors were considered to determine the success of the benefits package.
Finally, the conclusion falsely assumes that events occurring from past behavior will repeat in the future if the same action were to be taken and that funding more research and development initiatives will make the company more profitable. For example, even if it were a proven fact that the benefits package caused profits to begin to decline two years ago, introducing the same, reduced benefits package prior to the current one may not necessarily lead to enhanced profits. Perhaps the current economy is declining and consequently the company is losing profits from decreased customers. Additionally, the author does not substantiate the assertion that funding research and development will directly enhance profits. In fact, R&D spending could even decrease profits if it involves generates costs than it does profits; many technology companies have faced this fate.
In conclusion, the argument suffers from logical flaws and extreme conclusions based on unproven assumptions. The author falsely assumes that correlation suggests causation in terms of the relationship between the current incentives package and declining profits and quickly generalizes that the benefits package had marginal success in. With these assertions, the author unconvincingly concludes that introducing the previous and reduced incentives package, as well as using savings to fund research and development initiatives, will enhance company profits.