213
Argument 66
The following appeared in the annual report from the president of the National Brush
Company.
"In order to save money, we at the National Brush Company have decided to pay our
employees for each brush they produce instead of for the time they spend producing brushes.
We believe that this policy will lead to the production of more and better brushes, will allow us
to reduce our staff size, and will enable the company factories to operate for fewer
hours---resulting in savings on electricity and security costs. These changes will ensure that
the best workers keep their jobs and that the company will earn a profit in the coming year."
In this report, the president of National Brush Company (NBC) concludes that the best way
to ensure that NBC will earn a profit next year is for the company to pay its workers according
to the number of brushes they produce--rather than hourly. To support this conclusion, the
president claims that the new policy will result in the production of more and better brushes,
which in turn will allow NBC to reduce its staff size and operating hours, thereby cutting
expenses. This argument is fraught with dubious assumptions, which render it entirely
unconvincing.
First of all, the argument relies on the unsubstantiated assumption that the new policy will
motivate workers to produce brushes more quickly. Whether this is the case will depend, of
course, on the amount earned per brush and the rate at which workers can produce brushes. It
will also depend on the extent to which NBC workers are content with their current income
level. Lacking evidence that the new policy would result in the production of more brushes, the
president cannot convince me that this policy would be an effective means to ensure a profit
for NBC in the coming year.
Even if the new policy does motivate NBC workers to produce more brushes, the president’s
argument depends on the additional assumption that producing brushes more quickly can be
accomplished without sacrificing quality. In fact, the president goes further by predicting an
increase in quality. Yet common sense informs me that, if the production process otherwise
remains the same, quicker production is likely to reduce quality--and in any event certainly not
increase it. And a decline in quality might serve to diminish the value of NBC’s brushes in the
marketplace. Thus the ultimate result of the new policy might be to reduce NBC’s revenue and,
in mm, profits.Even assuming that as the result of the new policy NBC’s current work force produces more
brushes without sacrificing quality, reducing the size of the work force and the number of
operating hours would serve to offset those production gains. Admittedly, by keeping the most
efficient employees NBC would minimize the extent of this offset. Nevertheless, the president
provides no evidence that the result would be a net gain in production. Without any such
evidence the president’s argument that the new policy will help ensure profitability is highly
suspect.
In sum, the president has failed to provide adequate evidence to support his claim that the
new policy would serve to ensure a profit for NBC in the coming year. To strengthen the
argument, NBC should conduct a survey or other study to demonstrate not only its workers’
214
willingness to work more quickly but also their ability to maintain quality at a quicker pace. To
better assess the argument I would need detailed financial projections comparing current
payroll and other operating costs with projected costs under the new policy--in order to
determine whether NBC is likely to be more profitable under the proposed scheme.
Argument 67
The following is a memorandum written by the director of personnel to the president of the
Cedar Corporation.
"It would be a mistake to rehire the Good-Taste Company to supply the food in our employee
cafeteria next year. It is the second most expensive caterer in the city. In addition, its prices
have risen in each of the last three years, and it refuses to provide meals for people on special
diets. Just last month three employees complained to me that they no longer eat in the
cafeteria because they find the experience ’unbearable.’ Our company should instead hire
Discount Foods. Discount is a family-owned local company and it offers a varied menu of fish
and poultry. I recently tasted a sample lunch at one of the many companies that Discount
serves and it was delicious---an indication that hiring Discount will lead to improved employee
satisfaction."This memo recommends that Cedar Corporation replace its current food provider,
Good-Taste, with Discount Foods. To support this recommendation, the memo’s author cites
Good-Taste’s increasing fees, the fact that three Cedar employees refuse to eat in the
cafeteria, and various features of Discount Foods. For several reasons, this evidence fails to
provide adequate support for the recommendation.
The memo’s reliance on the fact that three Cedar employees find eating in the company
cafeteria "unbearable" presents two problems. First, the memo unfairly assumes that
Good-Taste is responsible for these complaints. It is entirely possible that other conditions in
the cafeteria are instead responsible. Second, the memo assumes that complaints by only
three Cedar employees constitutes a statistically significant number which warrants replacing
Good-Taste with another food provider. However, the memo provides no evidence that this is
the case.
Another problem with the recommendation is that it relies partly on the fact that Good Taste
has been increasing its fees and is now the second-most-expensive food provider available to
Cedar. Yet the recommendation is based on what food provider would best satisfy Cedar’s
employees, not what provider would reduce Cedar’s costs. In other words, this evidence is not
directly relevant to the reasons for the author’s recommendation. Even if expense were a
legitimate factor, it is possible that Discount is even more expensive than Good-Taste.
Yet another problem with the recommendation is that it relies partly on the need to
accommodate employees with special dietary needs. The memo provides no evidence that
Good-Taste is any less capable than Discount of accommodating these employees. Rather,
the memo merely provides that Discount offers "a varied menu of fish and poultry." Without a
more detailed comparison between the offerings of the two compapies, it is unfair to conclude
that one would meet the needs of Cedar’s employees better than the other would.
Finally, the recommendation relies partly on the fact that in one taste test the memo’s author
found Discount Foods to be "delicious." In all likelihood, however, the author’s tastes do not
215
represent the collective tastes of Cedar employees; accordingly, the author’s report is patently
insufficient to demonstrate that Cedar’s employees would be more satisfied with Discount than
with Good-Taste.