I'm going to take GRE analysis writing test after several days. Would you please help me to revise this argument. Thank you!ARGUMENT- The following appeared in a memo at the XYZ company.
"When XYZ lays off employees, it pays Delany Personnel Firm to offer those employees assistance in creating resumés and developing interviewing skills, if they so desire. Laid-off employees have benefited greatly from Delany's services: last year those who used Delany found jobs much more quickly than did those who did not. Recently, it has been proposed that we use the less-expensive Walsh Personnel Firm in place of Delany. This would be a mistake because eight years ago, when XYZ was using Walsh, only half of the workers we laid off at that time found jobs within a year. Moreover, Delany is clearly superior, as evidenced by its bigger staff and larger number of branch offices. After all, last year Delany's clients took an average of six months to find jobs, whereas Walsh's clients took nine."
Before admitting it is a mistake to use the Walsh Personnel Firm as the assistance for laid-off employees instead of Delay Personnel Firm, the evidence given in the memo need to be carefully examined from several facets. The author points out that last year, the laid-off employees found jobs more quickly under the help of Delay. While eight years ago, only half of the laid-off workers found their jobs within a year. However, the author fails to provide enough evidence to substantiate that the Delany's services are better than Walsh, and overlooks other factors that influence the seeking jobs of the laid-off workers.
First and foremost, the author fails to take other possibilities that would have influence on the finding jobs of the laid-off workers. As we know, the positive attitude in seeking jobs, the capability of working and the good interaction with others are helpful for these laid-off workers. And the personnel firm's services are only the assistances for them. Without ruling out the personal factors, the assessing of the services offered by the two firms is unreasonable.
In addition, many conditions would change during the past eight years. It is possible that the laid-off workers last year are of the higher working capability level for the company lifted the hiring standards. If this is the case, the workers could be easier to find a new job in a short time. What's more the outward situation of finding a job might change in these years. Hence, the author should take these possibilities into account before coming to the conclusion.
Even if all the laid-off workers are of relative the same competitive strength in seeking jobs. The comparison of the effectiveness of the two personnel firms is not comprehensive. In this memo, the author states that Delany is superior for its bigger staff and larger number of branch offices. It is likely that the firm through hiring more workers to lift their working efficiency. And the cost of hiring more workers and opening branch offices will lead to the high expense of the XYZ Company.
Moreover, the author provides little comparative data to indicate that the Delany Firm offer a better services about helping laid-off workers with their jobs. In my observation, this data should including that the feedback of the laid-off workers who found their job successfully and in a short time and the detail description of jobs found by both firms in the same period of time. Without these crucial information, we cannot evaluate which company is more effective.
To sum up, the evidence given in the memo lends little credible support to the recommendation. In order to convince me, the author should make a comprehensive comparison of these two firms to demonstrate that the Delany is a premium choice and rule out other factors that will influence the finding jobs of these laid-off workers.