Unanswered [2] | Urgent [0]
  

Home / Writing Feedback   % width   Posts: 8


GRE (Analysis of an argument): Handing over security job of a company to a group



ershad193 14 / 321  
Jul 9, 2010   #1
The following appeared as a part of plan being discussed at the meeting of the Security department of Omax Industries
"In order to effectively take over the security threats to our installations, it is recommended that our company hire services from Tough Securities. Tough Securities boasts of more than 2000 personnel on the roll. More than 40% of their security guards are ex-defence personnel and most have been effectively manning the two installations of Wilroy Oil Industries. Mr. David Smith, CEO of Tough Securities has agreed to offer a discount of 14% to our company for the current year."


Security of its installations is one of the prime concerns of any company. A company cannot run properly if its employees always fear for their safety, or if the owners are constantly worried about the state of their equipments. However, the decision taken by Omax Industries to let Tough Securities take over its security concerns without considering all the facts may lead to harmful lapses.

Firstly, the statement does not mention anything about the arms used by Tough Securities. A lack of state-of-the-art equipments may negate the advantages of having large personnel numbers. Also, employing a small may result in better communication and coordination among the guards; a fact often demonstrated by the effectiveness of the small units in Special Forces.

Secondly, it is not clear as to whether Tough Securities have handled jobs similar to the one required in Omax Industries. Working in an incompatible environment may require some adjustment time. But, there is no room for such delays in a security job.

One final point that weakens the argument is the fact that there is no data regarding the ages of the personnel. It is admirable that more than one third of the force is made up of defence personnel. But it doesn't hide the reality that a physically unfit force, however trained, cannot cope with the rigors of the aforementioned job.

Handing over the security responsibilities to Tough Securities may turn out to be the best decision taken by Omax Industries. However, before conclusions are taken, the group's background and suitability must be properly investigated. After all, partial knowledge often spawns trouble.

flavia03 7 / 9  
Jul 9, 2010   #2
It is not "Firstly, secondly". I believe the right way is "first, second, third"

" a small amount"... a word you forgot to add.
OP ershad193 14 / 321  
Jul 9, 2010   #3
Thanks for pointing those out.

a small force, actually..
EF_Susan - / 2310  
Jul 10, 2010   #4
...or if the owners are constantly worried about the state of their equipments .

However, the decision made by Omax Industries to let Tough Securities take over its security concerns without considering all the facts may lead to harmful lapses.

Firstly , the statement does not mention anything about the arms ? 'arms' doesn't sound right. used by Tough Securities.

A lack of state-of-the-art equipments may negate the advantages of having large personnel numbers.

Also, employing less people may result in better communication...

Secondly, it is not clear as to whether Tough Securities have handled jobs similar to the one required by Omax Industries.

Working in an incompatible environment ...incompatible with what?

It is admirable that more than one third of the force is made up of defense personnel, bu t it doesn't change the reality that a physically unfit force, however ...

Handing over the security responsibilities to Tough Securities may turn out to be the best decision made by Omax Industries.
OP ershad193 14 / 321  
Jul 10, 2010   #5
Thanks a lot Susan

Should I use 'weapons or ammunition' instead of 'arms', or maybe, the phrase, "arms and ammunition"?

Incompatible with their training/previous work etc. How do you suggest I should write that sentence?
vrajveer89 8 / 21  
Jul 10, 2010   #6
Hi

Nicely written.

You can also point out that before considering the '14% discount' offer made by Tough securities, one needs to actually consider the total amount being charged by the company. It might turn out that the principal sum itself is very high.
OP ershad193 14 / 321  
Jul 10, 2010   #7
That's a good point. Thanks Rajveer.
EF_Kevin 8 / 13053  
Jul 12, 2010   #8
"Arms" is less clear, but it is okay. Weapons and ammunition is a very clear way to say it.

:-)


Home / Writing Feedback / GRE (Analysis of an argument): Handing over security job of a company to a group
Need Writing or Editing Help?
Fill out one of these forms:

Graduate Writing / Editing:
GraduateWriter form ◳

Best Essay Service:
CustomPapers form ◳

Excellence in Editing:
Rose Editing ◳

AI-Paper Rewriting:
Robot Rewrite ◳

Academic AI Writer:
Custom AI Writer ◳