ARGUMENT241

quechuangyiUID: 2761926

TOPIC: ARGUMENT241 - The following appeared in a memo at the XYZ company.

"When XYZ lays off employees, it pays Delany Personnel Firm to offer those employees assistance in creating resumés and developing interviewing skills, if they so desire. Laid-off employees have benefited greatly from Delany's services: last year those who used Delany found jobs much more quickly than did those who did not. Recently, it has been proposed that we use the less-expensive Walsh Personnel Firm in place of Delany. This would be a mistake because eight years ago, when XYZ was using Walsh, only half of the workers we laid off at that time found jobs within a year. Moreover, Delany is clearly superior, as evidenced by its bigger staff and larger number of branch offices. After all, last year Delany's clients took an average of six months to find jobs, whereas Walsh's clients took nine."



According to the argument, the author claims that Delany( D) is superior than Walsh( W) , citing the facts that only 50 percent of the laid-offs found jobs within a year 8 years ago and D has bigger staff and more branch offices, with shorter time it cost for D's clients to find jobs added. For that matter, the author insists that it is a wrong choice for the XYZ company to use W instead of D, since laid-off employees have  benefited greatly from D's services, as is mentioned. Careful scrunity, we can find several flaws in the seemingly reasonable argument.



To decide the cooperative company, the most important thing that should be taken into account for XYZ firm is which the laid-off employees could benefit the most from. To bolster his conclusion that D is better and more competent, the author compares the rate of laid-off people who found job again between W and D, while the former needs six months in average and the latter nine. But it is unfair to just take the time cost into consideration. Perhaps, W is more careful in offering suitable choices for each individual or find better jobs which results in costing more time, while D is hasty to make its clients employed even the job is not so satisfying and spend less time in researching their various needs. For that matter, the author can not assert that W is inferior to D, since W offers more considerate services.



Furthermore, separately quoting the fact that only 50 percent of people fired 8 years ago found jobs within a year is helpless to convince me that W is less competent. It is quite possible that if XYZ used D at that time, the rate would be lower, in the case that W had more cooperators than D, which supplied greater number of job offerings. As a result, W's clients had more choices that were very appealing, which contributed the higher employment rate. Lacking a comparison to the realistic rate of D's employment, it is hasty of the author to treat W a weaker company.



Besides, bigger staff and larger number of branch offices are not the sign of excellent performance. We are not informed that whether D is scientifically organized and administrated by a wise leader. If the offices were divided randomly and the staff did not work hard under a loose leadership, we could not make sure that D was more competent. Even though at the same time that W has marginally less members, all of the faculty are so professional and effective that they can serve equal number of clients-- if not more. It is efficiency that matters, not just how many employees.



To sum up, the author should offer more information or carry a survey to make sure that D is really superior to make his argument more reasonable and more convincing. Otherwise, the cheaper W seems more attractive to XYZ company.