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 “The common notion that workers are generally apathetic about management issues is false, or at least outdated: a recently published survey indicates that 79 percent of the nearly

The argument claims that a common thinking that the workers have lack of interest in management issues is untrue or at least outdated. In addition to this statement, the author has given evidence saying a survey indicates that 79 percent of nearly 1200 workers responded high level of interest in topics such as corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits program. Here, the author manipulates the facts and presents a distorted view of the situation. As a result, he fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated that workers do not lack any interest in management issues. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

Firstly, the arguments readily assumes that workers are apathetic about the management issues is false which means that workers do no lack any interest in management issues. This argument is totally based on a common thinking as said by the author. It is not at all possible that a common thinking is always right. The argument has not given any evidence as showing that workers always lack interest in the management issues. If the author had mentioned any fact relating to workers who have interest in management issues, then he would have been successful in explaining his point. For example, if the author had mentioned that there was a 40% loss in a company due to management’s performance, then it might b possible that this loss was due to workers apathetic behavior in management issues. Hence, it can be said that without any convincing facts and based upon a common notion, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than a substantive evidence.

Secondly, the author cites an evidence that 79 percent of 1200workers expressed high level of interest in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs. However, this claim may not be true because 79 percents of the workers might not have answered the questions rightly. It may be possible that more than half of the people might have given false answers. So the statement cannot be totally based on the survey result. On the contrary, if the survey is true that more percentage of workers are interested in corporate reconstructing and redesign of benefits programs, it could be because that company is basically based on work of corporate reconstructing rather than management issues. And the rest 21% workers have high level of interest in management issues which help the company in being successful. Clearly, the evidence of given by the author is unclear.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. In order to assess the merits of certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors. In this argument, without much facts and evidences, this argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.