The director of research and development at Ready-to-Ware has concluded that the company’s benefits package is too costly. He therefore recommends cutting the benefits in order to curb losses. The director begins his argument by stating, ‘Our quarterly profits have declined since the package was introduced two years ago, at the time of our incorporation.’ This assertion, while true, does not prove his point. The director then says that the company’s profits have still declined, which indicates that his reasoning is flawed. Instead of assuming that the company’s profits have declined since the package was introduced, perhaps he means that since the inception of the package, profits have decreased. If that is the director’s point, then he needs to provide more information about what effect the package had on the company. He must also explain how the company’s profits have declined, and what were the causes of the decrease in profits

The director’s next statement, ‘Moreover, the package had little positive effect, as we have had only marginal success in recruiting and training high-quality professional staff,’ also indicates a fundamental flaw in his argument. The director assumes that the benefits package is the reason for the decrease in profits. Without more information, it is difficult to evaluate his assumption. However, there are two possible explanations for the decline in profits. The first possibility, which the director does not acknowledge, is the fact that the company has recently undergone a period of growth, perhaps due to the introduction of a new product. If this growth was a result of the benefits package, then the director would mistakenly blame the company’s losses on the package. The second explanation, however, is that the cost of benefits may be the reason that profits are declining. For example, although the company may have spent a great deal of money on the benefits package, this money may have been spent unwisely. Perhaps the company hired a lot of new employees, but they did not contribute much to the company’s bottom line. In that case, the company’s profits may have declined simply because the new employees were expensive to hire. Without more information, it is impossible to say whether benefits cost the company money, so the director’s assertion about the ineffectiveness of the package is meaningless

The director says that the company’s profits have ‘only marginal success in recruiting and training high-quality professional staff.’ This statement may be true, but it does little to bolster the director’s argument. The director does not say whether the package has actually helped the company to recruit or train high-quality professional staff. Perhaps the company’s difficulty in hiring and training high-quality professional staff is more attributable to budgetary constraints than anything else. In that case, cutting the benefits would not help the company. The director should also explain exactly what the benefits package is that offers the company ‘marginal success in recruiting and training high-quality professional staff.’If the director is correct that costs of the benefits package are the reason for the company’s losses, then he should justify these costs. For example, he would need to show that the benefits he offers are comparable to those of other companies in the industry. In that case, the company could decide whether or not the benefits are worth the costs. If the director cannot justify these costs, then his assertion that the benefits package costs the company money may not actually be true. The director should also provide evidence that the benefits cost the company money, because the director does not back up his claim with any evidence

In closing, the director’s argument lacks several key pieces of evidence. If the director’s company has recently been experiencing a period of growth, then he should not assume that the benefits are responsible for the profits. The director also needs to explain how the benefits package is contributing to the company’s losses. Without this information, it is unclear which aspects of the package are contributing to the company’s losses. Furthermore, he fails to explain how benefits contribute to the company’s recruiting and training of high-quality professional staff. Without this information, it is impossible to determine whether the benefits actually help the company to recruit or train high-quality staff. By ignoring the evidence, the director is acting logically, but not accurately.