Last year, we surveyed our employees on improvements needed at Company

Could someone please evaluate the AWA to see whether it is up to par and if I have missed some relevant points. How else could I better my essay?

Prompt -
The following appeared in a memorandum from the director of human resources to the executive officers of Company X:
"Last year, we surveyed our employees on improvements needed at Company X by having them rank, in order of importance,
the issues presented in a list of possible improvements. Improved communications between employees and management was consistently ranked as the issue
of highest importance by the employees who responded to the survey. As you know, we have since instituted regular communications sessions conducted by
high-level management, which the employees can attend on a voluntary basis. Therefore, it is likely that most employees at Company X now feel that the
improvement most needed at the company has been made."

Response -
The Director of Human Resources at Company X claims that the biggest improvement has been made in the company by instituting a regularly scheduled connect between the leadership and the employees of the company. Stated this way the argument is manipulating facts and presents a distorted view of the reality. The argument relies on assumptions that cannot be clearly found in the argument's data. Hence the argument is weak and has several flaws

First, the argument states that the issue ranked first was addressed by instituting a regular communications session between the high level management and the employees. This statement is a stretch as there has been no clear indication that the sessions have been useful to increase the communication. Sure there might have been more opportunities but that still does not assure us of more and clear communication between the two groups. For example - Some employees may be hesitant to share their concerns in such a group setting. Also, since the meetings are voluntary, not a lot of people may even come to these sessions. This argument could have benefitted from a survey to understand the satisfaction levels of the employees with this arrangement.

Second, the argument also claims that the most important issue was the need for better communication between the employees and management. This claim is also weak and unsupported by the data in the argument. The employees were asked to pick only from a fixed list of issues. What if, for example one of the issues most pertinent to the employees about Company X was not included in the list itself. It is not at all clear from the argument itself what were the issues that made it to the list and how relevant they were. Hence there is a need to review them before such a blanket statement is made.

Finally, it would be important to also know what the sample size was for the survey? How many people participated in the survey and do they represent all the different designations of the company X? Possibly another survey to understand the effectiveness of the course of action undertaken could provide us with a clearer picture of the effectiveness of the strategy. Without answers to these questions the argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than a substantive evidence for the improvement.

In conclusion the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and hence unconvincing. It could be further assessed by working on the suggestions provided. Without this information the argument is unsubstantiated and open to debate.