[Big Fish]3月24日Argument229 by-Sansouci

SansouciUID: 2755036

TOPIC: ARGUMENT229 - The following appeared as part of a memo from the manager of a hazardous-waste disposal company.

"Our new plan will help us better protect our staff against exposure to toxic chemicals: we are fitting each new safety suit with an alarm that will sound in the main control booth when the suit is punctured. The control booth will notify the managers on duty, who will then take the necessary steps to ensure employees' safety. In addition to the obvious safety-related benefits, the fast reaction time will ensure minimal work stoppage and thus result in increased worker productivity and company profitability."
WORDS: 403
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-3-24 16:15:49

In this argument, the author advocated that we should adopt new plan which will help better protect our staff, ensure minimal work stoppage and thus increased worker productivity and company profitability. To substantiate the conclusion the author provides the procedure of new safety system and the control by managers on duty. Nevertheless, no matter how convincible this argument at first glance, I remain skeptical towards its conclusion due to several vital fallacies made by the arguer. The reasons are stated as follows.

First of all, the fact that the new safety suit with alarm accomplishes nothing toward bolstering the recommendation that plan will protect out staff against exposure to toxic chemicals. We are not informed about the working mechanism of alarming system, there is possibility of system failure, and the manager fails to indicate if there is any emergency strategy in case of system failure. So the safety about staff cannot be guaranteed. The author's reasoning is definitely incomplete unless the arguer can convince me that there is actually exists emergency system in case of system failure to make sure staff safety..

Even if the new system is effectively, nevertheless, the evidence provided in this argument is not sufficient to validate the assumption that most work stoppage is caused by problems which could be prevented by the new suits. Do there actually real too many staff delay work due to they exposure in toxic chemicals. It is quite possible that equipments of company are too old to maintain productivity results to most work stoppage. Thus, without ruling out and accounting for other alternative explanations, the editorial remains unconvincing.

The last but not the least important, the system in itself could not guarantee increased worker productivity and company profitability. Common sense tells me that profitability is a function of revenues and expenses. However, we are not informed about how many cost the new plan would have, it is entirely possible the technological suits which is made by newly create material, so the cost per suits is high than proceeds of company. So the sufficiency of the system is cannot be guaranteed.

To sum up, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. In order to make it logically acceptable, the arguer should provide information about the cost of new suit and the emergency strategy in case of the system failure. To better assess the argument, the author should take every possible consideration into account.