 |
ESSAY OF THE WEEK |
|
|
|
Question
The following appeared in the business section of a local newspaper:
"Back injuries account for most workers' compensation injury claims. Investing in new equipment that reduces the need for lifting will reduce the number of workers' compensation claims for back injuries, and will result in lower costs for compensation claims."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| saba: 4/30/2009 |
 |
Nowadays, new equipments is need of every cooroperation relate to health.If they have well equipment for workers there will be less compensation claims.
There can many other factors for back injuries of worker for instance working enivornment, health issues, lower intake of food and lack of compensation on time.
There should be proper medical checkup after every few months due to which such medical problem will be catch in the early stage of problem.In this way worker will work more hard if they get proper care.For instance worker in our organization get proper checkup on time due to which they remain happy and less affect on work.
Compensation package should be up to mark according to the time and conditions.if they have good compensation package worker inreture will give good results.
In the end,every company should keep their worker happy and satisfied .In this way they will get good result in long run. |
| |
|
|
|
|
| Kabir Dixit: 5/2/2009 |
|
Several assumptions inherent in the given argument need further examination. A few poins of departure for the examination are provided below:
First, assuming the assertion about 'back injuries accounting for most workers' compensation injury claims' to be true, we need to ascertain accurately the extent to which the act of 'lifting' is a cause for most back injuries as has been implied in the given argument.
Secondly, if and once we establish that the need for lifting should be reduced, there should be some reserach done to find out why does lifting occur and what are the various ways in which the need for it can be reduced. It is not a foregone conclusion that the desired result can only be obtained through investing in new equipment.
Finally, if investing in new equipment is found to be necessary to achieve the desired result, a comparative cost benefit analysis is recommended between the investment required and the costs incurred by way of back injury related compensation claims over the lifetime of the equipment and other related costs if any.
With the answers to the above questions in hand, the reasonability of the given argument can be tested in a better fashion. |
| |
|
|
|
|
| Ashish: 6/1/2009 |
|
According to given information, back injuries are responsible for a moajor compensation injury claims. A new equipment will reduce the need for lifting resulting in less no. of claims for back injuries. This is fairly impying that for lowering the cost of compensation claims investment in new equipments is justified.
But few scenarios need to be addressed before declaring such claim. It need to be identified that other causes of compensation claims are either reduced or affecting in same way. Is new equipment causing an increase in other kind of injury claims and to what extent?
above cases, however, are not big concerns as most workers are claiming compensation due to back injury. There are very few chances that these cases overshadow the effect of decrease in back injuries. So, It would be righteous to accept that cost of compensation claims will be lower by introducing new equipment.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
Reference Essay |
|
The premise that back injuries account for most workers' compensation claims is acceptable at face value because it is reasonable, even though it is not supported by evidence. While the reader may accept the premise that back injuries are the most common on-the-job injury, it's something of a leap to accept that investing in new equipment will reduce the incidence of work-related back injuries. Understanding why back injuries happen and why investment is the preferred solution would help support this argument.
The item does not indicate the most frequent cause of work-related back injuries. It is possible that back injuries occur more frequently as the result of carrying heavy objects than merely lifting them. Perhaps a significant number of back injuries are the result of repetitive motion or improper support, rather than lifting. In this case, new equipment would prevent only lifting-related injuries. This argument would be stronger if it provided details on the percentage of back injuries attributable to lifting that result in workers' compensation claims.
Without understanding why back injuries happen, the reader might conclude that some other less expensive solution than investment in new equipment may provide an equal or better reduction in workplace injuries. For example, education or training on proper lifting techniques; reducing the amount of weight a worker is expected to lift; or changing production techniques could eliminate a significant number of injuries without requiring additional investment in equipment. Perhaps the work itself is dangerous and will remain so, regardless of the equipment used. The argument for new investment would be stronger if the passage indicated why new equipment is preferable to less costly solutions.
While the author's first premise is acceptable, there is no evidence in the remainder of the passage to suggest that lifting is the primary source of back injuries and that investment in new equipment to reduce lifting is preferable to other less expensive solutions.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
