Thursday, January 15, 2009

Water for Health?

The following appeared in an article in a health and fitness magazine:

"Laboratory studies show that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains several of the minerals necessary for good
health and that it is completely free of bacteria. Residents of Saluda, the small town where the water is bottled, are hospitalized less frequently than the national average. Even though Saluda Natural Spring Water may seem expensive, drinking it instead of tap water is a wise investment in good health."

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The article tries to convince the reader that paying a higher price for Saluda Natural Spring Water is a wise decision as it is good for health. The reasoning presented, however, is not convincing.

The article presumes that mineral water bottled at any other place does not have similar minerals. If it is mentioned clearly that it is indeed the case, then the company has case for demanding a higher price; else the argument gets seriously weakened.

The article also implies that only drinking mineral water is responsible for the good health of Saluda residents.  Since the article clearly states that Saluda is a small town, a clean environment and a healthy lifestyle may as well be responsible for the good health. Attributing it to drinking water alone seems pretty far-fetched. If it is the question of supplying the body with essential minerals, eating a balanced diet or taking mineral supplements seems to be a better solution than drinking expensive water. The writer is also careful to pick only one statistic, frequency of hospitalization, as the basis of his assertion. If this is supported by other statistics like life expectancy and number of times people actually fell sick but were not hospitalized, the argument may gain some strength.

Concluding, The argument on its own seems a bit far-fetched. If it argues its case on basis of uniqueness and more statistics, it can gain some strength. On its own or with any information to the contrary it is weak and dubious.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Broader Background or Deeper Knowledge

"Some employers who recruit recent college graduates for entry-level jobs evaluate applicants only on their performance in business courses such as accounting, marketing, and economics. However, other employers also
expect applicants to have a broad background in such courses as history, literature, and philosophy."

Do you think that, in the application process, employers should emphasize one type of background-either
specialization in business courses or a more varied academic preparation-over the other? Why or why not? Develop
your position by using reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

The answer to this question lies in the position for which the hiring is being done. If the position is highly technical and needs minimum interaction with people, it makes sense to focus only on the required subject. But if the position may eventually require a person to participate in client interaction, corporate strategy or a lot of people interaction, it makes sense to hire a person with a broad background.

For example, when hiring a database administrator the most important factor is the person's knowledge about databases. Anything else may be good to have but is not likely to have any significant effect on the quality of the job. On the other hand a person hired into the human resources department may need to have a broader background as it may help him to communicate with the company employees in a better way. Similarly a Sales person's personality and background can play a more pivotal role than his actual knowledge of the sales lifecycle. Another reason to prefer people with broader background for a strategic role is that most of the things in the world are inter-connected. Financial needs can drive marketing and a good marketing may depend on feedback from the sales force. A person with a broader background is more likely to notice these connections and make constructive inputs to strategic decisions. 

A person with a strong knowledge in a small number of subjects is extremely useful and irreplaceable. Nevertheless such a person cannot be expected to look beyond his subjects to seek solutions to problems affecting the whole company. They may also face difficulties if given a role that entails interaction with people of different backgrounds. Hence the employers should emphasize a broader background or a strong subject knowledge on the basis of technicality and the amount of people interaction required in the role. 

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Restaurant Industry Growth

The following appeared as part of an article in the travel section of a newspaper:

"Over the past decade, the restaurant industry in the country of Spiessa has experienced unprecedented growth. This surge can be expected to continue in the coming years, fueled by recent social changes: personal incomes are rising, more leisure time is available, single-person households are more common, and people have a greater interest in gourmet food, as evidenced by a proliferation of publications on the subject."

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The argument projects high growth in the restaurant industry in the coming years. Historic growth and recent social changes are used to back the assertion. 

Without analyzing the actual factors responsible for the growth the historic data cannot be used reliably to make future predictions. The growth may have been the result of many social, economic and political factors: the Government promoting the industry, steady growth of economy, stable Governments, growth in people's income, a population explosion, increase in the number of single-person households and an increased interest in Gourmet food. We need to carefully analyze the past data to ascertain the factors which contributed to the growth and compare them with expected future conditions. Only then we can hope to make a reasonable prediction. 

The writer has correctly identified some of the factors that can fuel the growth in the restaurant industry. However if the economy was to go in recession or if there was a civil war, none of these factors would be able to sustain the growth. Depending on prevailing bank interest rates and markets, surplus money may end up being either spent or invested. Leisure time can be spent in a variety of activities like travel and sports.  Even the interest in gourmet food can translate into sale of recipe books and people taking interest in learning gourmet cooking. The changes are credible and logical in the sense that they can contribute to the growth of the restaurant industry. Nevertheless they may or may not make a difference depending on a lot of factors.  

Hence the argument can be made stronger if it clearly states that the factors listed by the author are the factors that actually contributed to the growth in the restaurant industry in the past and that the current economic and political environment is conducive for future growth of the industry. Without that the line of reasoning is weak and speculative.