Please provide feedback AWA Argument

[redpearl137]

Please someone rate my argument essay. This will help me get started and finalize my template
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument
The following appeared in a report presented for discussion at a meeting of the directors of a company that
manufactures parts for heavy machinery:
"The falling revenues that the company is experiencing coincide with delays in manufacturing. These delays, in turn,
are due in large part to poor planning in purchasing metals. Consider further that the manager of the department that
handles purchasing of raw materials has an excellent background in general business, psychology, and sociology,
but knows little about the properties of metals. The company should, therefore, move the purchasing manager to the
sales department and bring in a scientist from the research division to be manager of the purchasing department."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Response
The author concludes that the manager of the department for purchasing raw material is at fault for little knowledge about properties of metals and that falling revenues are a result of poor planning in purchasing metals. Though at a first glance, the arugment looks sound, but a closer analysis reveal that the argument rests on weak premises and questionable assumptions.

First, the author readily assumes that the delays in manufacturing are a result of poor planning in purchasing metals. The author fails to provide any factual data or evidence to support the same. For example, there are chances that the delays in manufacturing are a result of poor inventory management rather than poor planning in purchasing raw materials. It could also be possible that some snag in assembly line has resulted in delays in manufacturing. The arugument could have been clearer if the actualy relationship between purchasing of metals and manufacturing of goods was clearly specified.

Second, the author claims that the manager is inefficient just because he lacks the knowledge of metal properties though he is good at general business. The author fails to identify any other reason leading to inefficiency in purchasing metals. For instance, the market conditions may not be good enough for the supply of metals and the manager may actually be doing better than any other manager in handling such a situation. If the author had provided evidence to relate the knowledge of properties of metals to efficiency at purchasing them, the argument would have been more convincing.

Finally, the author assumes that a scientist from research division will perform better than the current manager without understanding the overall requirements of the role. To illustrate, the role of a manager demands not only technical knowledge but also managerial skills and business acumen to handle various situations involving interaction with other people. A scientist who might lack these soft skills may actually prove worse than the current manager at handling the situation. Chances are that the manager is actually performing much better than any such scientist mentioned by the author. A close study of the requirements of the role can make the arugment more convincing.

To sum, the argument is weak and unconvincing because of the above mentioned reasons. The argument can be made more persuasive by providing evidences as specified above. Without these facts, the argument is not very convincing and fails to impress the reader.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thanks a lot in advance.

[thanghnvn]

the argument says that the moving the purchasing manager and bringing the scientist will solve the problem of declining revenure. To support this conclusion, the argument cites the relation between declining revenure and delays in manufacturing and lack of metals knowlege of the purchasing managers. I see this argument is flawed because it asssumes many important points.

First, the argument assumes that the delays in the manufacturing process causes the decline in revenue. This assumption can be incorrect. Twe events may not be in causal relation when they happen at the same time. I can give you an example of this point. when ever the moon rises, the stock market in my courntry also rises. This relation dose not show that moon rising causes stock market to rise. To make the argument more convincing, the author should give more exampls of the causal relationship.


Second, the argument assumes that the lack of metals knowledge of purchasing managers causes the delays in manufacturing process. It is possible that the delays is caused by another reasons such as the bad working of the workers at the assemply line. If the author cites the evidence that relates the lack of metals knowledge and the delays the argument would be more convincing.

Third, the argument assumes that the bringing the scientist would solve the problem of delays because the scientists have good knowledge of the metals. This is not convincing. Even if the scientists have good knowledge of metal, the delays can still exist if the scientists have no experience of management. To support the thinking that the scientists can reduce the delays, the argument should bring more evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is not sound because it assumes many important points. The argument would be more convincing if it cites more evidence and examplse which I suggest above.
///////////
I do the above essay in less than 30 minutes, including editing.

OPENING
-paraphrasing the conclusion and evidence, saying that it is not sound
BODY paragraph:
-for each body paragraph: say 4 sentences: declare an assumption, explanation, example , suggestion for improvement

we do 2 or 3 body paragraph, each with one assumption

CONCLUSION:
- said that the argument is not sound because it assumeS many things and it is more sound if it do my suggestions.

pls, comment. Thank you.

[davetzulin]

"The falling revenues that the company is experiencing coincide with delays in manufacturing. These delays, in turn,
are due in large part to poor planning in purchasing metals. Consider further that the manager of the department that
handles purchasing of raw materials has an excellent background in general business, psychology, and sociology,
but knows little about the properties of metals. The company should, therefore, move the purchasing manager to the
sales department and bring in a scientist from the research division to be manager of the purchasing department."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

I'm doing my crash review for the AWA now and as I read the problem stem I can't help but think of it as a critical reasoning problem.

the part above bolded already states that the delays are due in large part to poor planning. So how can we attack any assumption here? I thought we should accept that fact and continue. The only attackable part seems to be "bringing in the scientist" as a replacement. For instance, why not as a technical advisor instead? Not only does the existing manager have a long list of managerial accolades, but presumably the scientist is not a people manager. so why throw the baby out with the bath water?

However, the "underlined" part I'm unsure of. It says "coincide". In any case, I would proceed with my argument assuming that they are causally related, meaning the delays are causing the reduction in revenue...

expert opinions would help me a lot here.

[alicezyk]

"The falling revenues that the company is experiencing coincide with delays in manufacturing. These delays, in turn,
are due in large part to poor planning in purchasing metals. Consider further that the manager of the department that
handles purchasing of raw materials has an excellent background in general business, psychology, and sociology,
but knows little about the properties of metals. The company should, therefore, move the purchasing manager to the
sales department and bring in a scientist from the research division to be manager of the purchasing department."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

I'm doing my crash review for the AWA now and as I read the problem stem I can't help but think of it as a critical reasoning problem.

the part above bolded already states that the delays are due in large part to poor planning. So how can we attack any assumption here? I thought we should accept that fact and continue. The only attackable part seems to be "bringing in the scientist" as a replacement. For instance, why not as a technical advisor instead? Not only does the existing manager have a long list of managerial accolades, but presumably the scientist is not a people manager. so why throw the baby out with the bath water?

However, the "underlined" part I'm unsure of. It says "coincide". In any case, I would proceed with my argument assuming that they are causally related, meaning the delays are causing the reduction in revenue...

expert opinions would help me a lot here.

I have the same problem here. Can Any instructor help? PLz?