The following appeared in an editorial in the local newspaper of Workville.

“Workers should be allowed to reduce their workload from 40 to 25 or even 20 hours per week because it is clear that people who work part-time instead of full-time have better health and improved morale. One store in Workville, which began allowing its employees to work part-time last year, reports that fewer days of sick leave were taken last year than in previous years. In contrast, the factory in Workville, which does not allow any of its employees to work part-time, had a slight increase in the number of days of sick leave taken last year. In addition, a recent survey reports that most of the store employees stated that they are satisfied with their jobs, while many of the factory employees stated that they are dissatisfied with their jobs.”

The above article appeared in an editorial in the local newspaper of Workville. The arguer wants to recommend that the workload of workers should be reduced from 40 to 25 or even 20 hours because people who work part-time instead of full-time have better health and improved morale. The arguer presents various arguments in favor of his stand. The first argument presented by the arguer is an example of one store in Workville which allowed its workers to work part time and in the last year fewer sick leaves were taken as compared to previous years. The second reason which the arguer gives in favor of his argument is that in contrast the factory in Workville which does not allow any part time to its employees had a slight increase in the number of days of sick leaves taken last year. Finally, according to a recent survey most of the store employees stated that they are satisfied with their jobs, while many of the factory employees stated that they are dissatisfied with their jobs. The arguments given by the arguer are irrelevant and therefore the recommendation should not be accepted.

The first argument presented by the arguer is that in a store where part time was allowed for workers fewer sick leaves were taken last year than previous years. The arguer has not mentioned the exact number of the leaves taken last year as compared to previous years. It is possible that in the previous years some communicable disease had spared in the store due to which more number of employees had to take leave. The arguer has only mentioned the example of one store and it is very much possible that in the other store the trend of leaves was different. People who opt for part time jobs are already occupied with some other work. It is possible that they are less healthy and down in morale than full time workers.

The second argument presented by the arguer is that a factory in Workville which does not allow its workers to work part time had a slight increase in sick leaves taken last year. It is very much possible that some new machinery was introduced in the factory and workers had accidents and that is why more leaves were reported. The arguer mentions about a slight increase and that can be due to some natural calamity also.

Finally, the arguer mentions that in a recent survey store employees stated that they are satisfied while factory employees reported to be dissatisfied with their jobs. The arguer fails to mention the exact ratio of people who were surveyed. The arguer has also not mentioned whether these figures were from the same factory which did not allow its workers part time and store which allowed its workers part time.

The arguments presented by the arguer are not sufficient and relevant to make his stand acceptable.