|
|
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.
26 Apr 2021, 09:28
Kudos
Bookmarks
Q: Prompt: “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.”
Essay Format
The argument claims that in order to compensate the injury occurring at workplace, the risk should be mitigated with the increased wages of the employees. Stated in such a way, the argument is weak and incomplete of data, tends to manipulate the hypothesis presented in a distorted way and is a leap of faith reasoning without clear outcomes. However the argument could have been presented by the author in a much lucid way and corroborated with facts and figures to support the hypothesis.
First the author suggest that the risk of getting physically injured by an employee should be compensated with proportional increase in salary. This is really absurd as injury cannot be compensated with monetary benefits. However, it could have been better suggested by the author of the safety practices to be inculcated in the working atmosphere of to implement cardinal safety parameters to be accident proof at a large extent. It could have been much better if the author could have stated about implementing safety rules or appointing safety stewards or alleviating safety standards to benchmarks which could have also led to increase in productivity of the company. So, clearly the author has presented hypothesis which is weak in its form without any conducive facts.
Second, the author also suggest that by making the workplace safer, the employer could reduce the monetary burden of payroll. Again this is really a very weak judgement presented by the author. Increasing safety standards cannot be mitigated by alleviating employers salary. It needs investment in safety standards and proper protocols which may include several certifications and international standardisation implementations. Also considering the hypothesis presented by the author, it should have been supported with any audit report or cost benefit analysis, without which the data is simply a wishful thought suggested by author.
Finally, the major flaw in the suggestion that degree of safety of workplace depends on the type of work, eg mines are more risk prone as compared to a software office, projects are more riskier than operations departments, oil rigs are more riskier as compared to petrol pump outlets. So regardless of the type of expense made by increasing salary of employees, the work remains riskier.
In conclusion, the argument remains flawed for the reasons cited above. Apart from financial implications, the author should have discussed the socio-political implications which could have been much more pivotal in this case. Unless the facts are clearly stated and presented properly, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Essay Format
The argument claims that in order to compensate the injury occurring at workplace, the risk should be mitigated with the increased wages of the employees. Stated in such a way, the argument is weak and incomplete of data, tends to manipulate the hypothesis presented in a distorted way and is a leap of faith reasoning without clear outcomes. However the argument could have been presented by the author in a much lucid way and corroborated with facts and figures to support the hypothesis.
First the author suggest that the risk of getting physically injured by an employee should be compensated with proportional increase in salary. This is really absurd as injury cannot be compensated with monetary benefits. However, it could have been better suggested by the author of the safety practices to be inculcated in the working atmosphere of to implement cardinal safety parameters to be accident proof at a large extent. It could have been much better if the author could have stated about implementing safety rules or appointing safety stewards or alleviating safety standards to benchmarks which could have also led to increase in productivity of the company. So, clearly the author has presented hypothesis which is weak in its form without any conducive facts.
Second, the author also suggest that by making the workplace safer, the employer could reduce the monetary burden of payroll. Again this is really a very weak judgement presented by the author. Increasing safety standards cannot be mitigated by alleviating employers salary. It needs investment in safety standards and proper protocols which may include several certifications and international standardisation implementations. Also considering the hypothesis presented by the author, it should have been supported with any audit report or cost benefit analysis, without which the data is simply a wishful thought suggested by author.
Finally, the major flaw in the suggestion that degree of safety of workplace depends on the type of work, eg mines are more risk prone as compared to a software office, projects are more riskier than operations departments, oil rigs are more riskier as compared to petrol pump outlets. So regardless of the type of expense made by increasing salary of employees, the work remains riskier.
In conclusion, the argument remains flawed for the reasons cited above. Apart from financial implications, the author should have discussed the socio-political implications which could have been much more pivotal in this case. Unless the facts are clearly stated and presented properly, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Moderators:
188 posts
