Hello All ,
Tommorow is my test date, so please evaluate my analysis and provide critique about it. It is no longer cost-effective for the Perks Company to continue offering its employees a generous package of benefits and incentives year after year. In periods when national unemployment rates are low, Perks may need to offer such a package in order to attract and keep good employees, but since national unemployment rates are now high, Perks does not need to offer the same benefits and incentives. The money thus saved could be better used to replace the existing plant machinery with more technologically sophisticated equipment, or even to build an additional plant."
The argument claims that The Perks Company should not continue to offer generous package of benefits and incentives to its employees due to reduced cost effectiveness in doing so. The premise that author states to substantiate his view is that the incentives and benefits are only given during low national unemployment rate to attract and retain good employees and currently the unemployment rate is high so Perks do not need to lure its employees with any benefits. The argument also states that the capital saved with the help of cost-cutting could be better used to replace the existing plant machinery with more technologically sophisticated equipment, or even to build an additional plant. Stated in such a way the argument omits several key factors and significant premises, which are required to evaluate the credibility of the argument. The argument takes and over simplistic approach and is based on many assumptions for which there are no evidence. Therefore the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and suffers from three critical flaws.
The first assumption is that the benefits and incentives to good employees should only be offered during low unemployment rate in order to retain good employees. This statement is overstretched and not substantiated in any way. It could be possible that there is still a demand for highly skilled good employees and even if the unemployment rate is high, these skilled employees are still in demand and other companies still tries to higher these employees. The author could have strengthened the argument by mentioning that due to high unemployment rate all the companies have frozen their hiring even for the skilled workforce and even if good employees tries to find a job, they will not find any.
The second assumption is that unemployment rate is high across all the industries due to current national high unemployment rate. This is again a weak and unsupported claim as it could be possible that the national employment rate takes an average of all the industries and a clear possibility is that few industries do no face any decrease in employment rate but other industries face a significant increase in unemployment rate. For example, take the case of education industry, which is never affected by recession as no matter what happens people will send their children to school and colleges and hence the schools and colleges does not face any unemployment issues. The author could have strengthened the argument if there was some evidence that the industry which the Perks Company is in also faces high unemployment rate.
The third assumption is that the more technologically sophisticated equipment does not require any skilled workforce to operate. It does not substantiate the fact that with more advanced machinery a company would require more skilled labor to work and they would definitely require some incentives or perks due to their unique skills and limited availability. In addition if the argument provided details that any employee would be able to work with new machines and no special skill is required then the argument could have been strengthened even further.
In conclusion, the argument is not sound and persuasive due to the fact that the argument does not provide any support for the assumptions mentioned above. The argument could have been considerably strengthened if the premise clearly had mentioned that the high employment rate has left no place for any job opportunity for even the good employees, that the line of business, which Perks company is in also faces high unemployment rate and that all employees can work with the sophisticated equipment and no skilled workforce is required for it. Without any supportive ideas or information, one is left with the impression that the argument is more of a wishful thought rather than substantive evidence. As a result, the argument has no legs to stand on.
In summary the argument is flawed and is not well reasoned. In order to access the merits of a certain situation, it is evident to have a full knowledge of all the contributing facts.
The only way of finding the limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible.