Argument241【0806G-Sunbird小组】第7次作业

toumingsenlinUID: 2344846

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."
WORDS: 464          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-11-30 21:52:54

In the argument, the author comes to the conclusion that it would be a mistake to use the less-expensive Walsh Personnel Firm in place of Delany. A basis of this recommendation is selective comparison between these two firms. An additional reason in support of this recommendation is that laid-off employees benefited greatly from Delany's service. A careful examination would reveal how groundless it is.

First of all, the author commits a fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc in assuming that Delany's service helps laid-off employees get the next offer. The only evidence offered here to support the claim is that Delany's service occurred before getting new offers. However, the evidence inevitably set the claim in question because a mere chronological relationship is only one of the indicators of a causal relationship and, therefore does not necessarily prove causality. To establish a general causal relationship between them two, other factors that could result in new offers should be considered. For example, people with high computer skills are more likely to get new chances not only in high-tech companies but also in ordinary firms. The author's failure to investigate other possible explanations for regaining chances to work renders the conclusion based upon it highly suspect.

In addition, the argument suffers from a fallacy of all things are equal. The fact that Walsh did not offer proper service to people 8 years ago is not a sound evidence to draw a conclusion that Walsh's service is still poor now. The author assumes that without justification that all background conditions have remained the same at different times. It is not clear whether the current conditions are the same as they used to be 8 years ago. It is most likely that Walsh firm has improved its service and can offer satisfactory service now. Thus, it is impossible to conclude that Walsh is still a poor company.

Furthermore, the author assumes too hastily that bigger staff and large number of branch offices lead to good service. The author does not provide any sufficient evidence to support this claim. It is possible that the organization is too big to respond quickly. Yet respond speed is the very point that customers always focus on. Meanwhile the author does not mention anything about Delany's organization and staff information. Therefore, the author can not safely draw any significant conclusion.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author claims. To make the argument more convincing, the author should provide more information concerning comparison between Walsh and Delany in all respects. To better evaluate the argument, we need more concrete evidence that all laid-off employees' resume and profiles. Otherwise the argument is logically unacceptable.