The argument claims that if employees are obligated to wear photo identification badges (pib) at work, the number of employee thefts can be minimized. The claim is supported by a research conducted with 10 clients of a security and safety consulting service. Stated in this way, the argument reveals examples of poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology. In addition, the argument fails to address several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. Furthermore, the conclusion relies on assumption for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily bases oneself on a sample of 10 companies and a time period of 6 years. This approach is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. Not only is no further information about the companies and their employees provided but also it is no explained why the focus lies on employee thefts. For example, the probability that employees become a theft is extremely low as they are endangered to lose their jobs when they are caught. Also, it might be possible that each company in the sample only has 3 employees. Therefore, the company has a low risk for employee due to simpler employee monitoring. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated more information about the sample.
Second, the argument claims that the absence of employee thefts is because of the obligation for the employees to wear pib. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim, as the argument misses to address the several other factors, which influence the company security. To illustrate, pib are only one part of a security concept. The other parts are CCTV cameras, security cards, different access controls. Therefore, it is not clear, whether the pib are the only reason for the absence of employee thefts. If the argument had provided further evidence that the pib are the only reason for the absence of employee thefts then the argument woul have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument concludes that the use of pib should be recommended to all clients. From this statement again it is not clear at all whether the other companies would do similar to how the sample companies did. And as the inferences are based on an insufficient sample and the pib are not proofed as best method, one is left with the impression that the argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. Without full knowledge of all relevant factors, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
- The Cumquat Cafe began advertising on our local radio station this year and was delighted to see its business increase by 10 percent over last year s totals Their success shows you how you can use radio advertising to make your business more profitabl 58
- The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a local newspaper The owners of the Cumquat Caf evidently made a good business decision in moving to a new location as can
- Cafe 16
- This past winter 200 students from Waymarsh State College traveled to the state capitol building to protest againstproposed cuts in funding for various state college programs The other 12 000 Waymarsh students evidently weren tso concerned about their 68
- Our research indicates that over the past six years no incidents of employee theft have been reported within 10 of the companies that have been our clients In analyzing the security practices of these 10 companies we have further learned that each of 70
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 442 350
No. of Characters: 2160 1500
No. of Different Words: 207 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.585 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.887 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.774 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 160 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 129 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 91 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.417 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.708 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.625 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.308 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.5 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.074 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, hence, if, second, so, then, therefore, for example, in addition, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 28.0 16.3942115768 171% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2216.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 442.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.01357466063 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58517132086 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86576129237 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.475113122172 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 689.4 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 16.0 8.76447105788 183% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.6943077632 57.8364921388 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.3333333333 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4166666667 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.95833333333 5.70786347227 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 18.0 6.88822355289 261% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.171512436784 0.218282227539 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.049613719331 0.0743258471296 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.048989897377 0.0701772020484 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0899571252495 0.128457276422 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0720242010414 0.0628817314937 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 14.3799401198 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.92 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 98.500998004 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 12.3882235529 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.