Analytical Writing: Issue Essay

All too often, companies hire outside consultants to suggest ways for the company to operate more efficiently. If companies were to spend more time listening to their own employees, such consultants would be unnecessary.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with these statements and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statements might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

I believe that hiring outside consultants to suggest possible changes is an effective method for improving processes and incorporating new and imaginative ideas in the workplace. When employees are all trained to do a certain activity and have been doing it successfully for some time, there is little need to seek possible improvements. Hiring a third party with a fresh set of eyes and an in-depth understanding of the industry is a great way to challenge the current status-quo of the hiring company.

As far as the profitability of this action, it can be a risk. These consultants often charge a large fee and it would result in a loss of profits if they find nothing to significantly improve. Companies should spend some time listening to what their employees have to say and have periodic team meetings about current problems and possible improvements. Holding these meetings will better identify areas that need improvement and allows management to give them some flexibility to try their proposed new methods.

Since it is not the specialty of the employees to this, they would be getting paid to do something other than the job they are best at and obligated to do; so it would be wise to rarely have such meetings. Listening to your employees is a great way to determine if you need to hire a third party consultant, but it is best for them to spend most of their time working on what they do best. If innovation is deemed necessary by management, it is best to opt to hire professional consultants if there is a sense that improvements must be made.


Analytical Writing: Argument

Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas where the disease is detected. However, since there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations, we cannot permit inoculations against cow flu to be routinely administered.

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

The passage states that many lives can be saved with the routine administration of inoculations for cow flu, but indicates there is a small percentage chance that a person with die after it is administered to them. This seems like a heavy risk/reward trade-off, especially with no hard numbers like to back it up like: how many people contract cow flu each year, how many die from the disease, how large the area and population density is in the detected areas, the percentage expected to die from the inoculations and if any age/gender/ethnicity is especially prone to fatality from the inoculations.

No matter what, if there is even a slight chance of death there will have to be heavy regulations, warnings and public service announcements to help educate the public.

If research is conducted and it is found that .001% of people die from receiving an inoculation, 5% of people who contract the virus die, cow flu is effecting a large, densely populated area and it is easily spread; this would greatly weaken the argument and routine administration should be approved.

If research is conducted and it is found that 2% of people die from receiving an inoculation, .01% of people who contract the virus die, cow flu is detected in a small, less populated area and it is doesn't spread easily or is easily combated by a normal immune system; this would tremendously strengthen the argument and routine administration should be denied.

For something this serious, large clinical trials from top medical research institutions would need to provide conclusive numbers to determine the risk/reward and amount of regulation needed. The government would have to analyze the numbers provided by the institutions and make a hard choice. In my examples, the numbers were large to demonstrate appropriate actions; but there is a point to where either enough people are dying from cow flu and we must take immediate action or there are relatively few deaths each year with a significantly high fatality rate from inoculations and we should not administer the inoculations until more research is done to provide a new vaccine with a lower fatality rate or if cow flu is at risk for becoming a national epidemic.