My attempt using ChineseBurned template

Question

The following appeared in the editorial section of a monthly business news magazine:

"Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money."

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.


My attempt using ChineseBurned template:

The argument claims that it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer so they then could reduce their payroll expenses and save money. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that making the workplace safer would cost less than paying employees higher wages. This statement is a stretch because there are enormous costs that come with improving safety. For example, training for employees to work in unsafe conditions. Also, employees who are better trained or certified tend to have higher earning power because they are specialized for specific harsh work environments. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that all risk would be eliminated by my making the workplace safer.

Second, the argument claims that anyone who works in dangerous environment is paid more. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between ratio risk and wages being the same across all companies and all job roles. To illustrate, a fairly risky job is moving furniture, a job that can wear out an employees back and cause back injuries. The physical labor still creates significant risk, but these jobs are not highly paid. If the argument had provided evidence that all companies paid more for working in a role that had higher risk for physical injury, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.

Finally, employers should make the workplace as safe as possible regardless of impact to payroll expenses. This is because when an accident happens, work stops and an investigation occurs. This means that there is an interruption in productivity, and the downtime could cost a lot in lost revenue. Also, how would simply paying employees more create a safer workplace and avoid safety issues? Without convincing answers to this question, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thought rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain claim, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the factors and to present evidence.