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 writing:The argument presented in the editorial section of a business magazine regarding the financial soundness of making workplace safer has some validity in theory. However, it misses out essential information to judge whether the reasoning is valid. The author states that the more dangerous the work is, the higher salary a worker should be paid. Under this premise, the author conclude that company owners have financial incentives to improve workplace safety. The reasons include lower payroll expense and more money saved. There are a few underlying assumptions made in the argument that need additional information to be validated. Without this extra information, the argument rests solely on assumption and not on fact.
First, the argument assumes the requirement to pay higher salary to employee doing dangerous work. Without this assumption, whether the job is dangerous makes no impact on the payroll and, as a result, improving workplace should make no difference in terms of salary payment. In the argument, while the notion of higher payment is generally agreed among employers, there is no information regarding whether this practice must be implemented. Therefore, the payer may choose to pay the same for all kinds of job, even though some are truly more dangerous. The assumption could become more established if the following questions are answered. Is there any rule requiring employer to pay more for the more dangerous jobs? Is the fine in the law high enough so that the company is forced to adopt this policy? Is there any agency that monitors the application of this practice so that any attempt to disregard this policy is likely to be spotted and punished? With this additional information, the author will be in better position to establish this assumption.
Second, the argument assumes the connection between the safety improvement in workplace and the reduction in the payroll. While it is tempting to think that, by raising the safety standard, companies could reasonably pay less, it could also be likely that the payroll will be the same or even become higher. To maintain the high safety standard, company will have to allocate enough human resource to the Safety department, leading to more headcount and, ultimately, a bigger salary pool. Also, some tasks are intrinsically dangerous regardless of the safety measure in place. So, it is unlikely that the company could reduce the payment made to staff who oversee these risky duties. One would need to answer several questions to establish a reasonable connection between better workplace safety and lower payroll, as follows: could the salary of the Safety department push the current salary payment up? Could the tasks considered as risky be reduced? Is there any machine that could replace human to do dangerous tasks? Without answering these key questions, the argument bases entirely on speculation and not evidence.
Finally, the argument implies that the save from making work a safer place is higher than the cost that required for this upgrade. While it is possible to believe that company will save money by removing the risk of paying compensation for work accidents and reducing total salary, the safety upgrade will cost the company a huge amount of monetary investment. It includes, for example, buying new or replacing old machine, fixing up workshop, and paying for training sessions from experts. Because each of these activities will be costly, the total expenses could overwhelm financial gain for upgrading workplace safety. One would need to address several questions to confidently draw a conclusion about whether the financial gain is worthy. The questions are: how much could the upgrade save? How much does it cost to make the improvement? Could the upgrade bring other financial gains other than reducing payroll, such as building a more positive brand and, as a result, generating higher sales.
The argument superficially appears reasonable. It, however, lacks essential information that is required to judge the validity of the argument. By addressing the questions outlined in the above analysis, the author could be confident to draw the conclusion that it is financially sensible for employer to make workplace safer. Until these questions are answered, the argument remains open to be undermined.
Credit:I base my writing on the essay shared by @
mcelroytutoringhttps://gmatclub.com/forum/sample-awa-p ... 32484.htmlThank you very much for sharing!