The following appeared in the editorial section of a corporate newsletter.
“The common notion that workers are generally apathetic about management issues is false, or at least outdated: a recently published survey indicates that 79 percent of the nearly 1,200 workers who responded to survey questionnaires expressed a high level of interest in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs.”
The argument in the editorial section of a corporate newsletter is unconvincing because its conclusion depends on unsubstantiated assumption of a survey with 1,200 workers by unmentioned published survey. Each of the following areas merit further explanation before it can be given any degree of credibility of its conclusion of accepting the notion that workers are indeed interested in the management issues.
Firstly, the author fails to provide any data to support his assumption that workers’ being apathetic about management is a common notion. There are no survey results or findings that could prove the author’s self-accepted notion.
Secondly, the survey that indicated that 79 percent of nearly 1.200 workers, did not give the exact nature of the survey and the kind of people surveyed for its findings. For example, if people in the mid-managerial level of any organization is surveyed, then the data may comply by their views but in case, the people from factories and of region say Detroit may be surveyed, the findings may be completely opposite against what it is. In such a scenario, the survey findings can certainly be questioned unless further information about the survey is given.
Last but not the least, one cannot completely rule out the nature of the findings unless further information is furnished, It might be possible that the findings may be biased and the whole procedure might have been carried out in desire of the current result only, influenced by the higher managements of some companies. Additionally, unless the credibility of the agency doing the survey is also not established, it is very difficult to accept the findings applicable to general people.
Due to the many holes in the reasoning in the arguments of the report, it is difficult to take the arguments seriously. Unless further evidence surface in each of the areas discussed above, the given premises are insufficient proof that the conclusion drawn is viable.