Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
15 Nov 2009, 00:25
Kudos
Bookmarks
Feedback appreciated. Kudos for constructive feedback 
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in an article in a human resources magazine:
"Six months ago, in an experiment aimed at boosting worker productivity, Company Z started providing free gourmet lunches to its employees. The Company hoped that these office lunches would encourage employees to remain in the building during lunch-hour and motivate employees to work harder throughout the day. A survey found that soon after the lunch program was implemented, the average number of hours worked by most Company Z employees increased dramatically. During this same period, the Company's profits also increased substantially. Thus, it is safe to say that the lunch program was a huge success and that Company Z should make the program permanent."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The argument states that by providing gourmet lunches for it's employees, Company Z was able to increase worker productivity and this led to increased company profits. While there is circumstantial evidence provided, this argument is flawed because it lacks solid evidence directly linking the suggested cause to the effect and the argument also makes a few suspect assumptions. I will outline these flaws, provide examples to substantiate my argument and address how the author could have strengthened his or her argument.
Firstly, the argument states that one reason for the company to provide gourmet lunchs was so that it's staff would "remain in the building during lunch hour". The argument then proceeds to explain how the average number of hours worked by most Company Z employees increased. The argument is flawed as it assumes that an employee staying within the building during lunch hour is going to somehow lead to these employees working harder or longer hours. This is not necessarily true, as presumably lunch time is still time that the employee will use to eat their lunch. Hence, there is no link between staying in the building and working longer hours, unless time used for eating is considered working longer hours, which sounds absurd. The argument could be strengthened perhaps by providing evidence of how long employees stayed at lunch for the period that the trial program was running and how many hours they worked during the same period in order to establish some type of relationship between the two.
A second flawed assumption the argument depends on is that it claims that employees will "work harder througout the day". No evidence is provided that correlates lunch being provided and increased productivity throughout the day. Research has often shown that leaving ones place of work at lunch and taking in some fresh air and taking ones mind off work has proven an effective method to increase productivity, however there is no evidence to prove that staying at work has the same effect. Furthermore, there is no specific details given on how the study measured productivity. Simply assuming an employee that works longer hours produces more effective work is incorrect as the employee could be staying at work for other reasons, such as to impress his or her superiors. If this claim could be substantiated with evidence that can link the trial program to increased productivity, the cause and effect between these two could be established.
Perhaps the biggest flaw of the argument is that it directly attributes the apparent increase in hours worked by employees to the increased profits of Company Z. This argument demonstrates a huge leap of faith in terms of logic. There is no evidence that suggests that the increased hours actually had any effect at all on the profits. Consider, for example, the possibility that Company Z was in a market that was currently experiencing an upward trend in terms of profit, and that Company Z's profit was showing an upward trend prior to the office lunch program being initiated; This possibility provides an alternate reason why the company's profits would increase other than the office lunch program. The argument could be strengthened by somehow providing measures of the employee productivity gains and showing how this would affect profits. For example, had the employees produced a larger number of patents which increased new product development during the trial period compared with other similar periods that the lunch program was not in place, such a comparison would provide some evidence to correlate the two seemingly unrelated events.
In conclusion, it can be seen that without stronger evidence and links between the suggested cause and effects, this argument is currently flawed. While the author may have provided some circumstantial evidence the argument could be further strengthened by providing examples of how the suggested effects of the office lunch program lead to the increased profit.
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in an article in a human resources magazine:
"Six months ago, in an experiment aimed at boosting worker productivity, Company Z started providing free gourmet lunches to its employees. The Company hoped that these office lunches would encourage employees to remain in the building during lunch-hour and motivate employees to work harder throughout the day. A survey found that soon after the lunch program was implemented, the average number of hours worked by most Company Z employees increased dramatically. During this same period, the Company's profits also increased substantially. Thus, it is safe to say that the lunch program was a huge success and that Company Z should make the program permanent."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The argument states that by providing gourmet lunches for it's employees, Company Z was able to increase worker productivity and this led to increased company profits. While there is circumstantial evidence provided, this argument is flawed because it lacks solid evidence directly linking the suggested cause to the effect and the argument also makes a few suspect assumptions. I will outline these flaws, provide examples to substantiate my argument and address how the author could have strengthened his or her argument.
Firstly, the argument states that one reason for the company to provide gourmet lunchs was so that it's staff would "remain in the building during lunch hour". The argument then proceeds to explain how the average number of hours worked by most Company Z employees increased. The argument is flawed as it assumes that an employee staying within the building during lunch hour is going to somehow lead to these employees working harder or longer hours. This is not necessarily true, as presumably lunch time is still time that the employee will use to eat their lunch. Hence, there is no link between staying in the building and working longer hours, unless time used for eating is considered working longer hours, which sounds absurd. The argument could be strengthened perhaps by providing evidence of how long employees stayed at lunch for the period that the trial program was running and how many hours they worked during the same period in order to establish some type of relationship between the two.
A second flawed assumption the argument depends on is that it claims that employees will "work harder througout the day". No evidence is provided that correlates lunch being provided and increased productivity throughout the day. Research has often shown that leaving ones place of work at lunch and taking in some fresh air and taking ones mind off work has proven an effective method to increase productivity, however there is no evidence to prove that staying at work has the same effect. Furthermore, there is no specific details given on how the study measured productivity. Simply assuming an employee that works longer hours produces more effective work is incorrect as the employee could be staying at work for other reasons, such as to impress his or her superiors. If this claim could be substantiated with evidence that can link the trial program to increased productivity, the cause and effect between these two could be established.
Perhaps the biggest flaw of the argument is that it directly attributes the apparent increase in hours worked by employees to the increased profits of Company Z. This argument demonstrates a huge leap of faith in terms of logic. There is no evidence that suggests that the increased hours actually had any effect at all on the profits. Consider, for example, the possibility that Company Z was in a market that was currently experiencing an upward trend in terms of profit, and that Company Z's profit was showing an upward trend prior to the office lunch program being initiated; This possibility provides an alternate reason why the company's profits would increase other than the office lunch program. The argument could be strengthened by somehow providing measures of the employee productivity gains and showing how this would affect profits. For example, had the employees produced a larger number of patents which increased new product development during the trial period compared with other similar periods that the lunch program was not in place, such a comparison would provide some evidence to correlate the two seemingly unrelated events.
In conclusion, it can be seen that without stronger evidence and links between the suggested cause and effects, this argument is currently flawed. While the author may have provided some circumstantial evidence the argument could be further strengthened by providing examples of how the suggested effects of the office lunch program lead to the increased profit.
Moderators:
188 posts
