Have you ever been jealous of WORDS?

"The unit of language" is what the Oxford English Dictionary defines 'word' as. Have you ever felt that the word sometimes is more than the unit of language. They say that the meaning of a sentence is more than the sum of meanings of its words, but is the value of a word as good as its sentence?. I like to think otherwise, because words are just that WORDS. You cannot define a word, but yes, you can feel it, express using it and also play with it, but you can never quite define a word. This is where i tend to get very frustrated with these words. I can understand the sentence they are used in , I can understand why they used there, I can even understand what the word is supposed to mean, But i can never quite get across to knowing the meaning of the word.
I am quite sure you must have heard of 'CATCH 22' or 'MIDNIGHT's CHILDREN'. These books are literary legends and are already part of folklore. I took to reading these books recently and i have to say i was quite amazed at the usage of words in this book. The words themselves were not profound but the way they were used was mind-boggling. While heller uses his words in such a twisted sense that you feel a sense of sarcasm at every word you come acrosss, rushdie is more straight forward, but nevertheless, the thread of words he uses to describe situations and emotions is amazing. I take the instance of these books because they show you that the a sentence can only be connected by a thread and also give you a profoundness about its meaning [and also because these are the only 2 books i have read in the jouner].
Now coming to the jealousy part, i was mended and sometimes laughing at the sentences that i found in these books, But i never could get around the fact that they somehow made so much sense on the whole that all i could do was admire them, even though i couldn't understand them. This is what frustrated me to the hilt, these books had sentences so profound and yet the emotions came across so clearly that i was left confused. and it was all due to those 'UNITS', those nagging little things hanging around sentences when you read them. What did i do? Well i went back to my staple of fictious fiction.

The following appeared in the editorial section of a corporate newsletter.
“The common notion that workers are generally apathetic about management issues is false, or at least outdated: a recently published
survey indicates that 79 percent of the nearly 1,200 workers who responded to survey questionnaires expressed a high level of interest in the
topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.



-The results of the survey were based on only 2 topics, this cannot be generalised into the entire spectre of management issues.
- Participants may not be showing genuine interest in the mangement practises ,but putting up a false pretext for the survey.
- Topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs are more personal to the workers, i.e to say that they woud be gainig or losing out if these practises were implemented. This cannot be said for the entire range of management issues.
- How much of the worker demography does the 1200 workers surveyed represent?
- The percentage of workers apathetic towrads management may have increased, but the conclusion that workers overall are not apathetic towards management practises cannot be drawn from the argument.
- The general trend of workers attitude towards various management practises would have given a more conclusive evidence to the argument.


The above argument bases its conclusion on only a survey conducted on 1200 workers and over only 2 topics of a large spectre of management practises. This gives the impression that the conclusion is very generalised and the argument is based upon only a few factors. For example, the results of the survey were based on only 2 topics, this cannot be generalised onto the entire spectre of management issues. Similarly the percentage or the demography of the 1200 workers surveyed is not very explicitly stated in the reasoning of the argument. Providing a little more clarity regarding the above points will give the better support to the conclusion .
There are other factors that the argument does not address while reasoning out the conclusion. Prime among them would be the topics chosen for the survey and the method implemeted while conducting the survey. Topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs are more personal to the workers, i.e to say that they woud be gainig or losing out if these practises were implemented. This cannot be said for the entire range of management issues In much the same questionable case, the participants may not be showing genuine interest in the mangement practises ,but putting up a false pretext for the survey. Addressing all these issues fills up certain blanks left by the reasoning in the argument.
The percentage of workers apathetic towrads management may have increased, but the conclusion that workers overall are not apathetic towards management practises cannot be drawn from the argument. The general trend of workers attitude towards various management practises would have given a more conclusive evidence to the argument.

The following appeared in the health section of a magazine on trends and lifestyles.
"People who use the artificial sweetener aspartame are better off consuming sugar, since aspartame can actually contribute to weight gain
rather than weight loss. For example, high levels of aspartame have been shown to trigger a craving for food by depleting the brain of a
chemical that registers satiety, or the sense of being full. Furthermore, studies suggest that sugars, if consumed after at least 45 minutes of
continuous exercise, actually enhance the body’s ability to burn fat. Consequently, those who drink aspartame-sweetened juices after
exercise will also lose this calorie-burning benefit. Thus it appears that people consuming aspartame rather than sugar are unlikely to
achieve their dietary goals."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

-not enough factors to arrive at conclusion
-Its affects on the overall consumption of food, like its effect on consuming different types of food not known.
-Apart from tehse 2 factors there might be many more ways of achieving the dietary goals, which might not be possible in the case of sugar
In the above argment , only two factors are stated to arrive at the conclusion that people consuming aspartame rather than sugar are unlikely to achieve their dietary goals. There may well be many more factors that act in favour of people consuming aspartame and bring out the advantages of using aspartame over sugar.
Though there are disadvantages in using aspartame, there might also be certain disadvantages n using the same. The argument should explore both sides of the coin before coming to a conclusion. The mode of reasoning in the above argument is from only one side of the fence, it would have been held in better stead if the pros and cons of aspartame over sugar were discussed. The argument sould list the advantages and disadvantes of aspartame and then reason out the dominance of one aspect over the other.
The argument takes into consideration only ceratin factors before coming to a premature coclunsion. The conclusion must be reached taking into account the full spectrum of factors.

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.

“When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today. Therefore, the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location. Such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees.”



In the argument given to approve the centralization of the Apogee Company, I would like to negate this suggestion by providing the following points. While the main fact used in the argument, that the profits of the company were better when it was at a single location, the reasoning is flawed. There are innumerable forces that decide the profitability of the company and the reason for the argument to pick out one among them to support its cause is not convincing. The profits may have dropped, which the facts seem to implicitly state, due to various reasons; like market pressure, new competition may have entered the market or an existing competitor may have become more aggressive. There might even be a case where the market in that industry might have fallen down. A case in observation would be the many companies that were thriving during the dotcom bust. Many companies had expanded, like sify and yahoo, but due to the overall market collapse had to incur losses. An argument might be put across in this case that one of the reasons companies, like yahoo, were able to survive or stay in business was because they diversified into different locations and hence had a broader base.

The argument thus falters while providing proper facts for its conclusion. More statistics, like providing the market cap and percentage capture of the market, would have given more strength to the argument. Another reasoning that it uses referring to the cutting of costs does not hold weight, when globalization has proved that the current trend is the other way round. Where companies are opening up more branches to cut the costs.

Thus, the argument does not provide substantial facts to add weight to its conclusion to move the Apogee company back to a single location. The argument would have done better if it had weighed in more statistics, or revise its decision by conducting more research into the subject.