AWA 3


The BestValue Superette chain has nine stores in Mytown, USA. The company’s policy is to maintain the same prices for all items at all stores. However, the distribution manager knowingly sends the poorest cuts of meat and the lowest quality produce to the store located in the low-income section of town. He justifies this action on the ground that this store has the highest overhead because of factors such as employee turnover, theft and vandalism.

Discuss how logically persuasive you find the above argument. In presenting your point of view, analyze the sort of reasoning used and its supporting evidence. In addition, state what further evidence, if any, would make the argument more sound and convincing or would make you better able to evaluate its conclusion.

 

Response:

The distribution manager’s argument is unconvincing because his conclusion depends on several unsubstantiated assumptions of high overhead. Each of the following areas merit further explanation before he can be given any degree of credibility of his decision of sending the poorest cuts of meat and low quality produce to the low-income store of the town.

Firstly, the consideration of theft as a factor of high overhead of the store is questionable. The possibility of the lack of the security measures at the store cannot be ruled out due to poor employee turnover. Also, the technical security measures adopted by the store might not be of the accepted standard. Additionally, the location of the town may be well-known for its higher rate of thefts due to improper law and order at that section f the town.

Secondly, vandalism can be the result of the dissatisfaction of the customers over the poor quality products provided at the stores and its continuous negligence towards improving it. Moreover, the possibility of the bad nature and behavior of the employees of the store also cannot be ruled out, which might be prompting people for vandalism.

Lastly, the employee turnover can be bad due to various reasons. There might be the possibility that the store might not be paying them well. Moreover, the employees could also be sceptic about their security due to chaotic frequent incidents like thefts and vandalism at the store. In view of the thefts and vandalism, the company’s response and trust towards its employees can also be questioned, which could determine the interest and loyalty of the employees.

Due to the many holes in the reasoning of the distribution manager’s argument, it is difficult to take him seriously. Unless further evidence surface in each of the areas discussed above, the given premises are insufficient proof that the conclusion drawn is viable.

Leave a Reply