The following is from recent mail from Diord Corp, Human Resources Manager. " TObor Technologies found that mental health problems and mental illness were responsible for about 15 percent of employee sick days. Tobor amended its employee insurance plan so

The argument by Diord Corp ,that if he addresses the problem of increasing number of absentees in his company as Tobor Technologies did, then there is surely an improvement on number of employees attending office which consequently catalyzes the rise in productivity, is not entirely logically convincing because the argument takes into account some crucial facts which may not apposite to other office-employees.

The argument states that in Tobor technologies before insurance plan for mental illness 15 percent of employment were mentally sick and after introducing insurance plan and psychologist the figure declines to 10percent. Here the argument has its flaw as it doesn't provide the information whether the number of employees remains same or it changes over time. Because with increase in employees with sound health and mental can plummet the figure 15% to 10%. Moreover the argument doesn't clarify whether the study was taken throughout the two years or on a particular day. If it is based on a particular day, then it would be that on that day employees suffering from mental pressure were high.

Secondly, the argument doesn't clearly reveal the number of decrease in illness. It has just figured out that number of sick employees is 10% but doesn't provide any information on mentally sick person. It may be the case that number of ills is decreased but proportion of mentally ailment still remains same.

Thirdly, the argument assumes that the conditions and environment affecting the employees of these two companies are same. But the effect of two companies can’t be similar. It may be the case that employees under Crop have already consulted with their respective psychologists but they don’t fine any remedy. In that situation appointing a psychologist in Crop’s company like Tobor technology doesn't help too much.Moreover, this argument doesn't reveal whether Tobor Technology has recruited new employees or released old ones, if so, then two populations are different and it is fatuous to infer based on two disparate populations.

Thus, in conclusion, the argument is not completely cogent. The facts stated in argument do little to bolster the conclusion of decrease in mental ailment and increase in production as it ignores the above explained facts.