|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
16 Jul 2017, 09:17
Kudos
Bookmarks
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."
My Essay:
The argument states that as the physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes sense for employers to make the workplace safer, thereby reducing their payroll expenses and save money. Stated in this way the argument is incomplete and unjustified. The argument is confusing causality with correlation.
The argument states that making the workplace safer would cut company's payroll expenses and save money, however the argument looks stretched and based on unjustified assumption that there is direct relationship between workplace and payroll expenses such that as workplace safety increases payroll can be reduced but it fails to include other key factors which also play role in payroll evaluation for the company. For example competitors payroll is one of the several factors which must also be taken into consideration as the company should have payroll which is competent with the current market's. The argument must provide other factors as well which accounts for payroll of the company, helping to evaluate the argument better.
The argument claims that money can be saved by reducing payroll expenses because of safer workplace. This claim is unjustified as though payroll expenses will reduce but installation charges of safety equipment and maintenance charges may add up to the expenses. The argument should mention the above mentioned costs and should compare them with the savings from the payroll reduction as it could be the case that costs offset savings.
Based on above mentioned reasons it can be stated that the argument is far stretched and unconvincing. The argument has faulty reasoning and based on unjustified assumption. The argument to look convincing must mention facts and amount relevant to the safety equipment cost and company's operational cost.
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."
My Essay:
The argument states that as the physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes sense for employers to make the workplace safer, thereby reducing their payroll expenses and save money. Stated in this way the argument is incomplete and unjustified. The argument is confusing causality with correlation.
The argument states that making the workplace safer would cut company's payroll expenses and save money, however the argument looks stretched and based on unjustified assumption that there is direct relationship between workplace and payroll expenses such that as workplace safety increases payroll can be reduced but it fails to include other key factors which also play role in payroll evaluation for the company. For example competitors payroll is one of the several factors which must also be taken into consideration as the company should have payroll which is competent with the current market's. The argument must provide other factors as well which accounts for payroll of the company, helping to evaluate the argument better.
The argument claims that money can be saved by reducing payroll expenses because of safer workplace. This claim is unjustified as though payroll expenses will reduce but installation charges of safety equipment and maintenance charges may add up to the expenses. The argument should mention the above mentioned costs and should compare them with the savings from the payroll reduction as it could be the case that costs offset savings.
Based on above mentioned reasons it can be stated that the argument is far stretched and unconvincing. The argument has faulty reasoning and based on unjustified assumption. The argument to look convincing must mention facts and amount relevant to the safety equipment cost and company's operational cost.
Moderators:
188 posts
