Finally, the manager’s recommendation to replace Pat with Rosa rests on the poor
assumption that the two businesses are sufficiently similar that Rosa’s experience and skill in
one business will transfer to the other. Even if Starlight’s increasing profitability is attributable to
Rosa’s leadership, she might nevertheless be unsuccessful leading a toy company, depending
on how much experience in the toy business is required to successfully lead such a company.
In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the manager must
show that Pat, and not some other factor beyond Pat’s control, is responsible for Fancy’s
declining profits. Similarly, the manager must show that it is Rosa who is primarily responsible
for Starlight’s profitability, and that Rosa’s abilities will transfer to the toy business. In order to
better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about how long Pat and Rosa
246
have served as presidents of their respective companies, and what their long-term record is for
leading their respective companies to profitability.
Argument 96
The following is a letter to the editor of a news magazine.
"Clearly, the successful use of robots on missions to explore outer space in the past 20 years
demonstrates that robots could be increasingly used to perform factory work more effectively,
efficiently, and profitably than human factory workers. The use of robots in factories would offer
several advantages. First, robots never get sick, so absenteeism would be reduced. Second,
robots do not make mistakes, so factories would increase their output. Finally, the use of
robots would also improve the morale of factory workers, since factory work can be so boring
that many workers would be glad to shift to more interesting kinds of tasks."
This editorial concludes that using robots for factory work would improve factory efficiency.
To justify this conclusion the editorial’s author cites the fact that robots have been used
effectively in many space missions. Also, the author claims that the use of robots in factories
would (1) reduce absenteeism because robots never get sick, (2) improve output because
robots do not make errors, and (3) improve factory-worker morale because these workers
could be reassigned to less boring jobs. However, the author’s argument is problematic in
several critical respects.
To begin with, the argument depends on the hasty assumption that the kinds of tasks robots
perform in space are similar to the ones they would perform in factories, and that there are no
differences between the two environments that would render robots less effective in factory
jobs than in space missions. Perhaps the effectiveness of robots in space missions is due
largely to the weightless environment of space. Or perhaps the average space-mission robot
performs less work than a typical factory robot would be required to perform. In either case, the
fact that robots are effective in space would amount to scant support the author’s argument.As for the author’s claim that the use of robots would decrease absenteeism, although
robots clearly do not get sick, in all likelihood factory robots would break down from time to
time which is tantamount to absenteeism. Without accounting for this likelihood the author
cannot rely on this claim to condude that the use of robots would improve overall factory
efficiency. Also questionable is the author’s claim that the use of robots would increase factory
output because robots do not make errors. Unless the author can provide clear evidence that
human errors result in a lower rate of factory output, and not just a lower quality of product, I
cannot be convinced that using robots would in fact increase the rate of output.
Two final problems involve the author’s claim that using robots would improve the morale of
factory workers, thereby improving factory effidency. First, the author provides no assurances
that if factory workers are reassigned to other types of jobs their morale would improve as a
result. Although the new jobs might be less boring, these jobs might pose other problems
which would adversely affect worker morale. Secondly, even if the morale of the workers
improves as a result of reassignment, overall factory efficiency will not necessarily improve as
a result. These workers might be ill-suited for their new jobs and thus be extremely ineffective
in them.
247
In sum, the editorial relies on a potentially weak analogy as well as on a series of
unwarranted claims. To strengthen the argument that the use of robots would improve factory
efficiency, the editorial’s author must at the very least provide clear evidence that factory
robots would perform the same types of tasks, and just as well, as the tasks robots have
performed in space missions. To better assess the strength of each of the author’s three
unwarranted claims, respectively, I would need to know: (1) the expected downtime i.e.,
absenteeism--for factory robots: (2) the extent to which human error decreases the rate of
factory output; and (3) the extent to which human factory workers would be happy and
effective in the new jobs to which they would be assigned.
Argument 97
The following appeared in a memorandum to faculty from the academic vice president of
Waymarsh University."So that we can better accomplish Waymarsh University’s academic goals, we should adopt
the job-opportunity (job-op) program offered at Plateau Technical College and strongly
encourage all students at Waymarsh to participate in it. The success of the job-op program at
Plateau is evident: over the past two years, more than 75% of the freshmen at Plateau have
enrolled in the optional job-op program. Moreover, at Plateau, the grades of job-op students
are consistently higher than those of other students, 90% of the job-op students receive job
offers within a month after their graduation, and most former job-op students report much
success in their careers."
In this memo a Waymarsh University administrator recommends that in order to achieve its
academic goals Waymarsh should adopt the same "job-op" program currently offered at
Plateau Technical College. To support this recommendation, the administrator points out a
high enrollment rate in the program at Plateau, high academic grades among Plateau students
enrolled in the program compared to other Plateau students, and a high success rate among
new Plateau graduates in finding jobs. The administrator’s argument is unconvincing for
several reasons.
First of all, the administrator does not inform us what Waymarsh’s academic goals are. It is
entirely possible that these goals have nothing to do with enrollment in job opportunity
programs or in the job-placement rate for new graduates. Although Plateau’s goals are likely to
depend on its job-placement rate, perhaps Waymarsh’s primary goal is to prepare its students
for graduate-level study. Even if Waymarsh’s goals involve job placement, there might be
alternative means of accomplishing those goals. In short, without identifying Waymarsh’s goals
and ruling out other possible means of attaining them, the administrator cannot justifiably
conclude that Waymarsh should adopt the job-op program.
Secondly, the fact that a high percentage of Plateau students enroll in Plateau’s job-op
program does not mean that a large portion of Waymarsh students will also enroll in the
program. Plateau students might be far more concerned about obtaining employment
immediately after graduation than Waymarsh students are. The fact that Plateau is a two-year
technical college while Waymarsh is a university supports this assertion.
Thirdly, the fact that Plateau students enrolled in the job-op program attain higher grades than
248
other Plateau students does not necessarily mean that the job-op program is responsible for
this phenomenon. Perhaps only the brighter, more competitive Plateau students enroll in the
job-op program in the first place. Without ruling out this possibility, the administrator cannot
convincingly conclude that Waymarsh students who enroll in the job-op program are more
likely to attain better grades or find jobs upon graduation. In fact, a job-op program might
actually thwart Waymarsh’s efforts, by encouraging enrollees to quit school and take jobs for
which a four-year degree is not needed.