The following appeared in a memo at XYZ company."When XYZ lays off employees, it pays Delany Personnel Firm to offer those employees assistance in creating résumés and developing interviewing skills, if they so desire. Laid-off employees have benefited gr

The author of the statement above believes that in order to find jobs for the laid off employees of the XYZ Company, it is better to cooperate with Delany Personnel Firm rather than the company named Walsh. This conclusion is grounded in the experience that XYZ Company had with Walsh, which seemingly was not successful. Furthermore, there are some cases that author enumerates as the advantages of Delany over the Walsh without any proof. The argument lacks supporting evidence.

First, to recognize working with Walsh as a mistake, an evidence is needed that shows not finding jobs for the half of the employees at eight years ago was exclusively due to the inefficiency of Walsh. Without such an evidence, it is possible that in then time there was an unemployment crisis and jobs were scarce to find. If this was the case, in that time it might be even a merit that the Walsh found jobs for the half of the laid off employees of the XYZ company no more than one year.

Secondly, the author needs to provide an evidence showing that last year Delany clients and Walsh clients were corresponding in numbers. If Walsh had many more clients than Delany, then it is normal that finding jobs take more time in Walsh. Moreover, another crucial evidence should be provided showing that the job satisfaction of the clients. The quality of jobs is a priority which the author failed to consider. It is possible that the quality of jobs found by Delany is so low that employees are not satisfied with their jobs. People clearly would prefer to stay 3month longer and find proper jobs by Walsh then.

Finally, the author cites Delany’s bigger staff and larger number of branch offices in order to show its superiority over Walsh. This does not guarantee that Delany can be more beneficial for the laid off employees. It is possible that branch offices and employees are dispersed among a large area of the nation, while Walsh might use more concentrated staff in the domains favorable for the laid off employees to find jobs. Therefore, the author needs direct evidence showing whether the Delany is better. Such an evidence shows the communications, the relations, the content of the clients, and the expertise of the staff and so on.

In short, the argument lacks the several viral evidence enumerated above. Without such evidence the argument remains open to different explanations defying any certain evaluation. Thus, the conclusion which is based on such an ambiguous argument cannot be tenable.