Below is an example of a typical "6" essay The following appeared in the editorial section of a monthly business news magazine: "Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money." 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. Answer The following sample paper would receive the highest rating: This argument states that it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer because by making the workplace safer then lower wages could be paid to employees. This conclusion is based on the premise that as the list of physical injury increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. However, there are several assumptions that may not necessarily apply to this argument. For example, the costs associated with making the workplace safe must outweigh the increased payroll expenses due to hazardous conditions. Also, one must look at the plausability of improving the work environment. And finally, because most companies agree that as the risk of injury increases so will wages doesn't necessarily mean that the all companies which have hazardous work environments agree. The first issue to be addressed is whether increased labor costs justify large capital expenditures to improve the work environment. Clearly one could argue that if making the workplace safe would cost an exorbitant amount of money in comparison to leaving the workplace as is and paying slightly increased wages than it would not make sense to improve the work environment. For example, if making the workplace safe would cost $100 million versus additional payroll expenses of only $5,000 per year, it would make financial sense to simply pay the increased wages. No business or business owner with any sense would pay all that extra money just to save a couple dollars and improve employee health and relations. To consider this, a cost benefit analysis must be made. I also feel that although a cost benefit analysis should be the determining factor with regard to these decisions making financial sense, it may not be the determining factor with regard to making social, moral and ethical sense. This argument also relies on the idea that companies solely use financial sense in analysing improving the work environment. This is not the case. Companies look at other considerations such as the negative social ramifications of high on-job injuries. For example, Toyota spends large amounts of money improving its environment because while its goal is to be profitable, it also prides itself on high employee morale and an almost perfectly safe work environment. However, Toyota finds that it can do both, as by improving employee health and employee relations they are guaranteed a more motivated staff, and hence a more efficient staff; this guarantees more money for the business as well as more safety for the employees. Finally one must understand that not all work environments can be made safer. For example, in the case of coal mining, a company only has limited ways of making the work environment safe. While companies may be able to ensure some safety precautions, they may not be able to provide all the safety measures necessary. In other words, a mining company has limited ability to control the air quality within a coal mine and therefore it cannot control the risk of employees getting blacklung. In other words, regardless of the intent of the company, some jobs are simply dangerous in nature. In conclusion, while at first it may seem to make financial sense to improve the safety of the work environment sometimes it truly does not make financial sense. Furthermore, financial sense may not be the only issue a company faces. Other types of analyses must be made such as the social ramifications of an unsafe work environment and the overall ability of a company to improve that environment (i.e., coal mine). Before any decision is made, all this things must be considered, not simply the reduction of payroll expenses.

The following appeared in the editorial section of a monthly business news magazine:
"Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money."
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.

The argument above states that the wages to employees increases directly with risk of the job. While this argument is true in most cases it is not the only reason that drives the wages of the employee. The argument goes on to say that by making the workplace safer the payroll expenses can be reduced.This conclusion has been drawn based on assumptions and reasoning not stated in the argument.
The argument assumes that the employers can make the workplace much more safe, in which case the safety of the workplace mus be increased irrespective of the payroal. Making the workplace safer does not necessarily decrease the risk involved in the job, it only decreases the probability of the mishap occuring. Thogh in most cases the increase in risk of a physical injury leads to an increase in the wages, it is not so in all the cases. Considr coal mining as an example, the emplyees here are not paid extra wages just because the risks involved is more. In some cases the the workpace cannot be made very safe, external conditions define how safe the workplace can be.
Thus the company is not just driven by financial goals in such cases but is also obligated to consider the moral and social stances. The companyneeds to find a compromise between the increase in safety and the profitability at the workplce. In cases such as the coal mines, i feel that the company should try to improve the safety of the workplace withi its resources, while also ensuring that the interests of employees are also protected, such as providing better insurances.



The following appeared in a report presented for discussion at a meeting of the directors of a company that manufactures parts for heavy machinery.
"The falling revenues that the company is experiencing coincide with delays in manufacturing. These delays, in turn, are due in large part to poor planning in purchasing metals.
Consider further that the manager of the department that handles purchasing of raw materials has an excellent background in general business, psychology, and sociology, but knows little about the properties of metals. The company should, therefore, move the purchasing manager to the sales department and bring in a scientist from the research division to be manager of the purchasing department."


submit ur essays to spookyreddy1@yahoo.com

The following appeared in a memorandum issued by a large city’s council on the arts.
"In a recent citywide poll, fifteen percent more residents said that they watch television programs about the visual arts than was the case in a
poll conducted five years ago. During these past five years, the number of people visiting our city’s art museums has increased by a similar
percentage. Since the corporate funding that supports public television, where most of the visual arts programs appear, is now being
threatened with severe cuts, we can expect that attendance at our city’s art museums will also start to decrease. Thus some of the city’s
funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public television."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.


The memorandum issued reasoning the reallocation of the city's funds to public television captures some very salient points to persuade the city council to seriously consider this course of action. I would like to state the following arguments to add weight to the memorandum's reasoning, while also highlighting some of the inconclusive reasoning incorporated into the memorandum.
The memorandum uses the analogy between the increase in people watching television programes to an increase in the number of people visiting the art museums as the backbone of its case, but the memorandum falters in not giving a clear relation between the two facts. The two cases may be directly related as the memorandum sugests, but it may very well be that the two events are totally independent. Take into consideration theh following scenario.
The number of people watching television has increased over the last five years
The on ground promotional campaings by the city council have increased.
The number of art exhibitions has increased over the last five years.
The art collection in the museums has increased, or more famous works of art have been installed in the houses.
The prices of Ads on television has increased over the last five years.
Any one of the above scenarios, which is practically plausible, can cause an increase in the number of people visiting the museums.and all of these events are very independent of television viewership. Thus the analogy drawn between the television viewership and museum attendence is very weak. The memorandum could have added more strenght if it had include a few more facts related to the museums attendance. like a refernce to the feedback or response by the television viewers to the Ads can add more light to the analogy stated. Therefore, though the memorandum states certain important facts it does not add a convincing link between the different facts to arrive at its final conclusion.