Argument Analysis 1

The following appeared in an editorial in the local newspaper of Workville.

"Workers should be allowed to reduce their workload from 40 to 25 or even 20 hours per week because it is clear that people who work part-time instead of full-time have better health and improved morale. One store in Workville, which began allowing its employees to work part-time last year, reports that fewer days of sick leave were taken last year than in previous years. In contrast, the factory in Workville, which does not allow any of its employees to work part-time, had a slight increase in the number of days of sick leave taken last year. In addition, a recent survey reports that most of the store employees stated that they are satisfied with their jobs, while many of the factory employees stated that they are dissatisfied with their jobs."

My response:

The argument above proposes the idea that reduced workload hours from the regular 40 hours per week would help boost employee health and morale. The author produces two seemingly cogent evidences to support her claim. The first: the fewer sick leaves taken by employees of a store that allows part time work policy as compared to employees of a factory that does not. The second evidence: reported higher job satisfaction of the store employees as compared to the factory employees. The argument as presented by the author is not sufficient enough for the evidences produced are fragmentary and full of loopholes. I will analyze the fallacies of the argument as below.

Based on the anecdotal evidence collected by the author, the author immediately assumes that the number of sick days taken are directly related the workload of the employees. The number of sick days taken could be related to any other amount of reasons. For one thing, the author failed to mention the conditions of the work environment of each work place. Is one workplace more hazardous than another? Could the factory be a more hazardous workplace than the store? For this very reason, the number of sick leave taken by factory workers could be significantly higher due to the frequency of work related injuries.

Another reason why the argument as presented by the author is insufficiently convincing is the size of the sample study. The author based his or her opinions based on the study of one single store and factory in a single region. If the study was conducted elsewhere, would the results be the same?Also, the study is flawed because the study is comparing two different types of businesses and work environment. To convince me of the solidity of the argument, the author should present a study that compares the effects of reduced workload of two similar businesses. Even if the statement that reducing workload would better employee morale and health, that policy might not hold true for a business of a different type.

Lastly, the author tries to imply a relationship between job satisfaction and the amount of workload. The level of job satisfaction might not be necessarily tied to the amount of workload a worker has. The level of job satisfaction can be due to any number of other reasons including monetary compensation, amount of vacation days, work environment and so on. The author should analyze the factors of what affects job satisfaction before making a definite judgment on the matter.

In conclusion, the author made her assumptions based on a number of data that did not take the above factors into consideration. The author should strengthen her stand by taking on more detailed studies and surveys that do not provide inconclusive evidence.