“Our research indicates that over the past six years no incidents of employee theft have been reported within 10 of the companies that have been our clients. In analyzing the security practices of these 10 companies, we have further learned that each of them requires its employees to wear photo identification badges while at work. In the future, therefore, we should recommend the use of such identification badges to all of our clients.”Essay:The argument claims that in order to avoid employee theft, the companies should use photo identification badges. The conclusion of the argument is based on the premise that in the last six years, 10 client comapnies in which photo identification badges are used have reported no employee theft. The conclusion of the argument is based on the assumption for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument has made a fraudulent assumption that if no empolyee theft has been reported by the company then there has been no employee theft in the company. Such an assumption is not at all valid, since it is quite possible that several employee thefts have taken place in the organisation, and because of such reasons as negative publicity or undesired attention, the organisation has not reported any of the thefts. In this instance, more data is required to properly conclude the argument.
Second, the argument has mentioned the use of photo identification badges by the companies with zero employee thefts and has stated that these photo identifications are very effective in stopping employee thefts. However, it is very likely that these companies have adopted other such security measures as biometric or face reading systems along with photo identification badges. It could be true that these alternate security measures are solely responsible for stopping the employee theft. So more research is required in order to eliminate such alternate reasons.
Finally, the argument has stated the research data of only 10 of the client companies of the research firm. It is very likley that the total client base of the firm is in thousands and many of these client companies have adopted photo identification badges; however, only 10 of the companies among these client companies have succedded in stopping employee theft. In such a situation, more research and data is needed in order to strengthen the conclusion of the argument.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for above mentioned reasons and is thus unconvincing. Based on the given premises, it can't be concluded that recommended use of photo identification to the clients will help in stopping employee theft. Without further knowledge and data argument remains unsubstantiated and open for debate.