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
The given argument is deeply flawed. It wrongfully assumes without proper logical and statistical proof that the falling revenues are because of the delays in manufacturing. The statements that follow also make conclusions based on unwarranted assumptions, like moving the purchasing manager to sales and replacing him with a scientist.
The evidence cited includes unambiguous language, for example, the argument asserts that the delays in manufacturing are “in large part” because of “poor” planning in the purchase of metals. The argument fails to provide any accurate data to support this statement. Moreover, delays can be due to various other reasons as well, for instance, transportation and delivery of the purchased metals. Moreover, the delay in manufacturing is said to be correlated to the revenues, but no actual proof of this is provided. Therefore, it isn’t right to assume so. There can be other factors affecting both the delays, and the falling revenues. Having been provided with additional data about the other related factors would've helped to come to a better solution. In addition to this, the manager with an “excellent background” is also a vague statement. It doesn’t clarify if it is even required for his job, eg: a background in sociology and psychology. At the same time, his so called “little” knowledge of the properties of metals might be sufficient for his job as a manager. Hence, moving him to sales wouldn’t guarantee any rise in revenues, even if they are correlated. The argument then wrongfully assumes that bringing in a scientist as his replacement would fix the problems. The scientist, even though might have in depth knowledge of metals, but wouldn’t be qualified to work as a manager.
Because the argument leaves out several key points and makes conclusions based on unwarranted assumptions, it is not sound or persuasive. If it included the statistical proof and more details as discussed above, the argument would’ve been more thorough and convincing.