The falling revenues that the company is experiencing coincide with

Hi,
Please rate my Analysis of Argument.

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.

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 response

The argument claims that the falling revenue of the company coincides with delays in manufacturing and these delays are because of poor planning in purchasing metals. The manager does not have the necessary scientific knowledge of the metals, which is root cause of the problem and therefore replace the manager by a scientist from the research division. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention various key factors on which it has been evaluated. It fails to mention other key factors that has contributed to the fall in revenue. The conclusion of the argument relies on various assumptions for which there are no clear evidence. Hence the argument is unconvincing and deeply flawed.

First, the argument states that falling revenue of the company is coinciding with the delays in manufacturing, thereby reasoning that the because of the delay revenue is falling. This statement is a stretch and not substantial in any way. It is possible that because the revenue is falling, there could be directions from higher management to slow down the production, which the author of the report is unaware of. So the cause and effect relation gets totally altered. Also the fall in revenue could be because of various other reasons. It is possible that the competitors have come out with better product or are selling their product cheaper than this company’s product or the market is going through a recession phase which has led to drop in the sales. We can find numerous examples with the above mentioned reason that has led to drop in revenue. The argument would have been clear and convincing if the detailed reasons with supporting evidence would have been provided.

Second, the argument assumes that the delay is caused by the poor planning in purchase of the metals. This again is a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the delay in production and poor planning. The delay in production could be because of other reasons also. For example, it is possible that there is a bottleneck in the production line that is causing the delay. Or it is also possible that the production line is not efficient enough to support the output demand. In fact the argument should provide support why it thinks that delay is caused by the poor planning in purchase of the metals.

Finally, the argument states that the manager has a very good business knowledge, psychology and sociology. If a person has that good business knowledge he would be well aware that poor planning is causing the delay, if at all. He would surely delegate that work to an expert, the scientist in this case. Moreover the manager has much more duties along with the purchase of the metals. A scientist is good in his field, but he cannot do other tasks that a manager does, and the chances of a scientist failing in managing the purchase department is even higher.

Finally the argument concludes without doing a proper analysis of the exact reasons for the drop in revenue. Without doing an in-depth analysis by just replacing the manager might just not improve the revenue generated. Without supporting evidence of what really caused the fall in revenue, one is left with the impression that it is more of a wishful thinking rather than real cause that has caused the issue on hand.

In summary the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened by providing the supporting evidence. In order to access the merits of situation it is essential to have the full knowledge of the contributing factors.