There is an argument that there is no need to go to the hospital or file an incident report as it will result in a delay of production. First, the employee had an accident at the company. Secondly, the manager is trying to cover it up by suggesting that the employee should take some days off. Additionally, the employee’s injuries may be critical and thus they may require medical attention.
The premises include the slipping and falling of the employee. According to Wahlbin & Reynolds (2010), the breach of duty may be affirmed from features of the accident. The assumption is that if the company investigates the incident that led to the employee’s injury, it will slow down the production process. The qualifier for this situation is the broken arm and the necessity for the employee to get medical attention. The counter-argument is the employee may be seriously injured than it looks; hence he requires to visit the hospital.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Both premises work together to support the conclusion. Although the employee tripped, it may not be fair to indicate that they do not require medical attention since the supervisor is merely using his vision to access the injury. The patient may be suffering from internal bleeding, hence dismissing the damage is not appropriate. Appeal to ignorance is a form of fallacious reasoning that is evident in this case (Bennett, 2017). The supervisor is well aware that an incident report should be written down to investigate the cause of the accident, but he ignores this fact for things to be done his way. There is also proof of ignorance by merely assuming that the injury is not as bad and that he will recover after getting rest.
The first premise on tripping and the arm looking slightly messed up is a moderate one (rating 2) because the injury may be more severe than it seems, and it, therefore, needs medical attention and an investigation to avoid a repeat of such a situation. On the other hand, the injury may be a minor one as observed by the supervisor and may, therefore, heal on its own. The second premise is strong (rating 3) because if the employee is not that hurt, then there is no need for investigations or any medical attention. The assumption that the inquiry would to the production process being slowed down appears to be farfetched, and it may weaken the argument. The supervisor indicated that this employee has coworkers. Hence when he goes to seek medical attention, his coworkers may replace him in his duties, and production will still go on. Nonetheless, investigations may be carried out without influencing the whole production process because not all the workers will be involved. The qualifier that the incident may lead to the employee and his coworkers losing their jobs as a result of the delay in the production process appears to be unjustified and ambiguous. The incident only involves a single employee, and production was also behind before this incident. Concerning the other employees, it would seem unfair in the long run.
The statement does no justice to the argument in general. The counter-argument that the employee should receive the necessary treatment and investigations about the incident done weakens the whole case. It is because if the injury ends up being major after receiving a check-up, the production process would be slowed down. The backlash from the superiors would take place.
The argument appears to be quite strong and persuasive. If the injury is just minor, then there is no need to go to such great lengths of investigations. Production should continue as it is already behind schedule, and the injured party, as suggested by the supervisor should take time off to recover. There is also no need to interfere with the busy schedule with a minor case. Conversely, this argument tends to go against the policies of the company. The incident reporting seems to be a norm in the company, and going against may not be as appropriate, and the other employees’ safety may not also be guaranteed.
References
Bennett, B. (2017). Logically fallacious: the ultimate collection of over 300 logical fallacies (Academic Edition) . EBookIt. Com.
Botting, D. (2016). The logical evaluation of arguments. Argumentation , 30 (2), 167-180.
Wahlbin, S., & Reynolds, G. (2010). U.S. Patent No. 7,702,528 . Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
