Hi
Sajjad1994May I request for evaluation of my essay, based on the undermentioned AWA prompt :-
QUESTION"Seven years ago, Zephyr Industries had no problem recruiting qualified candidates from college campuses. This year, however, Zephyr has hired only three qualified interns, fewer than one-quarter of those hired in each of the three preceding years. This suggests that the company's recruitment efforts need to be revamped. Since a growing number of potential recruits learn of career opportunities via social media and online discussion boards, Zephyr should suspend its campus recruitment efforts and instead hire social media consultants."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.ESSAYThe argument under reference, possibly an extract of Annual Report of the Zephyr Industries, presents its case for suspending the physical campus recruitment and hiring social media consultants to ramp up the recruitment drive, based on the sole evidence that nowadays most potential recruits learn about available career opportunities via social media and online discussion boards. While at an initial glance, the argument seems logically sound, however on a deeper analysis, it comes to the fore that the argument makes certain doubtful assumptions, as well as lacks enough supporting evidence. Besides, the argument also suffers from key flaws affecting the logical consistency. These flaws are enumerated in the succeeding paragraphs.
Firstly, the argument independently assumes that the potential recruits are predisposed towards only the online platform mode for gaining insight into the available career opportunities. Such an overarching assumption considering the various strata of the society, particularly in the economic sphere, may be too good to be logically sound. The argument should therefore present an analysis of the various groups in the society in this connection.
Secondly, the argument should present a comparative analysis of the benefits accrued as well as limitations observed in respect of the available recruitment modes for Zephyr industries. Without such a comparative analysis, the argument highlighting one-sided favour for social media consultants may not hold ground.
Thirdly, the argument lacks enough supporting evidence to prove the efficacy of social media consultants over that of the campus recruitment efforts. In fact, the author has not included the descriptive statistics pertaining to the adopted techniques by social media consultants that merit consideration over the techniques adopted as part of campus recruitment efforts as the vital supporting evidence.
Towards improving the logical soundness of the argument, the author needs to include supporting evidence in the form of analyses, survey results as well as views of domain experts. These , in turn, will function as supporting evidence for bringing out logical consistency in the argument.
In essence, the argument in its existing state is void towards effectively justifying its recommendation regarding adoption of social media consultancy mode instead of the prevailing campus recruitment mode by Zephyr industries. The author needs to strengthen the logical consistency of the argument by including enough supporting evidence, comparative analyses as well as widely held assumptions as part of the argument highlighting efficacy of social media consultants over that of the campus recruitment efforts.