The following appeared in a memorandum from the Director of the Human Resources to the executive officers of Company X Last year we surveyed our employees on improvements needed at Company X by having them rank in order of importance the issues presented

The author of the argument has failed to convince us that the survey was conducted properly and that the institution of regular communication sessions has affected the desired improvements. The argument, as it stands, is based on questionable assumptions and a faulty line of reasoning, a fact which renders it over-simplistic and unconvincing.

First of all, concerning the survey, the author assumes that all the possible improvements were included in the list. However, is it possible that the employees add some issues regarded as important to them or did they have to rank only the given list? If the authors of the list were biased it is possible that the list does not accurately represents all the potential improvements. In addition, the author does not report the exact number of the employees that responded to the survey, failing in that way to convince us that the sample is representative. Moreover, the rank one issue of communication between employees and management is obscure. Which aspect of communication is implied here? Is it communication at a personal level or at a professional level that helps in the circulation of ideas among managers and employees? The arguer has not set a clear basis for this ambiguous issue.

Next, concerning the applied solution, the Director flimsy assumes that the institution of voluntary regular communications sessions held by high-level managers is effective in satisfying the employees' need for improved communication. However, there are not sufficient data concerning the nature of these sessions and the percentage of attendance. Are the employees aware of these sessions? If they are, and since the sessions are on a voluntary basis, how frequently did they attend the sessions? The author does not clarify these crucial details on how the sessions are organized and most importantly how the employees react to these sessions. Furthermore, the author assumes that high-level management will indeed communicate with the low-rank employees, a fact that goes against the norm as it is the middle-level managers who usually attend this task.

Finally, the author falsely concludes that employees at Company X can feel the improvement most needed at the company. The Director assumes that the proposed solution has been appropriately benchmarked and that the output met the expectations. Nonetheless, the author does not base his conclusion on facts. How did they measure the feelings of the employees about the communication issue? Are there any perceivable improvements by the employees? The author makes an unsubstantial assumption that most employees are "likely" to feel the assumed improvement without providing any evidence.

To sum up, based on unsubstantiated assumptions and poor evidence, the author's reasoning does not provide concrete support for his/her conclusion. If the argument had included the items discussed above, it would have been more thorough and convincing.