GRE Argument Essay 108

The following appeared as part of a memo from the president of Automate, a company that manufactures automobiles.

“It has come to my attention that Sparks, Inc., the manufacturing company that just moved into our state, is advertising job openings at salaries that are twice as high as those paid to our experienced assembly-line workers. Some of our employees have already left to work for Sparks. In order to keep our best staff, we must pay them salaries equal to those Sparks pays its employees. Otherwise we will continue to lose employees in the future, because Sparks must staff the additional new plants that it plans to build in the state.”

The president of Automate, an automobile manufacturing company, recommends a hike in the pay scales of its employees in order to prevent them from leaving Automate and joining Sparks, Inc., which has just moved into their state. The president argues that Sparks has advertised for jobs at salaries that are twice as high as those paid to the experienced assembly-line workers at Automate. Therefore, he recommends that the salaries of its employees will have to be increased or else Automate would lose its best employees to Sparks. The arguer supports his recommendation by stating that Sparks needs to staff its new plants that it plans to establish in the state and therefore, there is an increased threat of Automate’s employees tendering their resignations. All the facts presented by the arguer do little to substantiate the argument as the arguer fails to prove that an increase in the salaries is an inevitable requirement.

The arguer has not clearly mentioned the nature of the jobs for which Sparks is offering a salary that is higher than what Automate pays to its assembly-line workers. It is likely that the jobs being advertised by Sparks require a different level of skills as compared to that required for assembly-line workers. This would explain the difference in salaries. Moreover, the argument does not mention the type of manufacturing being carried out by Sparks. Automate is an automobile manufacturing company and it is likely that Sparks manufactures some other types of automobiles that require more expertise. Therefore, even if the jobs being advertised by Sparks are for its assembly-line workers, the higher salaries offered by Sparks cannot be compared with those offered by Automate to its assembly-line workers.

The arguer does not address other reasons that may have been instrumental in leading to the defection of the workers of Automate to Sparks. It is likely that Sparks offers some incentives other than the high salary. For instance, it is likely that Sparks caters for a retirement plan or provides accommodation to its employees. Therefore, these incentives prompt the workers to join Sparks and it is highly possible that a high salary does not influence the workers at all. Therefore, a hike in the salaries of the workers at Automate may not be able to stop them from joining Sparks because of the other incentives being offered by Sparks.

There is no mention of the kinds of employees who have left Automate to work for Sparks. Additionally, the argument does not mention the number of workers who have defected to Sparks. In the absence of such evidence, it would be unfair to assume that Automate is losing its best employees to Sparks. It is likely that it is only a small percentage of new workers who have decided to switch jobs and the more experienced and skilled workers are still loyal to Automate. Moreover, it is likely that Sparks has increased the salary just for the recruitment process and the salaries might be reduced once the plants are functional.

Lastly, the fact that Sparks plans to build additional new plants in the state provides scant evidence in support of the recommendation made. It is likely that Sparks plans to staff its new plants by withdrawing its experienced workers from its other plants. Also, it is likely that it is just a rumor and Sparks has no intentions of setting up additional plants.

The argument could have been substantiated to an extent if the arguer had provided a direct link between the defection of workers from Automate to Sparks and the high salaries being offered by Sparks. Moreover, there is a need to prove that Sparks intends to staff its new plants from the workers who are currently employed by Automate. Therefore, increasing the salaries of all the employees of Automate to stop them from defecting would be a hasty decision as the arguer has failed to convince the reader that this step is necessary to hold back its employees.