The following appeared as part of a memo from the president of Automate, a company that manufactures automobiles."It has come to my attention that Sparks, Inc., the manufacturing company that just moved into our state, is advertising job openings at salar

In this memo, the president of the Automate company recommends that they must pay their experienced staffs the same salaries paid by Sparks, the other manufacturing factory. To support this recommendation he points out that Sparks is employing their best employees with more twice wages which is more persuasive. He also projects that unless they do increase their workers’ salaries as high as the salaries in Sparks, they will keep on losing their employees. To justify this projection, he claims that the rival company is going to build additional new plants. A close scrutiny to these evidence reveals that it lends little credible supporting to the argument.

First, the president unfairly assumes that their leaving work forces are just motivated in the higher earnings offered by Sparks. Sparks might have other encouraging perquisites for their workers. Also there is the possibility that the unsatisfactory factors such as providing no employee’s motivation, not considering their needs and desire to have effective voice and respectful interactions in working places of Automate have led to lose their staffs. And Automate must put a great emphasis on these problems first. Without considering and ruling out these and other possible factors, increasing the paid wages in Automate would not be dearly substantiated.

Second, even if the higher salary in Sparks is the only reason why the employees of Automate leave there, there is no persuasive evidence that guarantee their future satisfaction in their new work place. The new job might not continue to meet their demands in developing their skills and abilities in the long term. Therefore, this claim would not seem authentic without further efficient information.

Third, the prediction that Automate will lose more employees in future is not well reasoned based on two grounds. One is that he provides no supporting evidence that Sparks will undoubtedly establish the new plants and there will be no obstacles such as financial problems for the administrators. And another reason is that the president mentions no substantial evidence that demonstrates these plants would be economically beneficial to be able to employ more employees.

In sum, this memo fails to convince me that increasing the salaries in Automate would be effective to sustain the workers. To bolster this argument the author must accounts for other probable factors causing the workers to leave. And to better assess the strength of the argument I would need more information about long term features and characteristics of working situations in Sparks. And finally it would be helpful to know whether Sparks would be able to build other successful plants.