Self-study
Programmer: We computer programmers at Mytheco are demanding raises to make our average salary comparable with that of the technical writers here who receive, on average, 20 percent more in salary and benefits than we do. ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███ ████████████
███████ ██████████ ███ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ███████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██████ ████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ████████████ █████ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██ ███████ ███ ██████████ ███ ███████ ██ █████████ ███████████
Summarize Argument
The executive concludes that it's acceptable for Mytheco's technical writers to be paid more (on average) than programmers. This is because pay is tied to seniority, and many technical writers have worked at Mytheco longer than many programmers.
The executive's argument works by applying a principle (pay based on seniority) to a factual situation (employment tenure at Mytheco), leading to a conclusion that the facts conform to the principle. However, the executive conflates the idea of "many" writers having greater seniority than "many" programmers with the groups' respective average seniority. This is important because the conclusion is that an average pay gap is acceptable.
To evaluate this argument, we need to determine whether the executive's claim that "many" writers are more senior than "many" programmers actually reflects average seniority. In other words, we need to ask whether writers have more seniority on average
2.
Evaluating the adequacy of the ███████ ███████████ ████████ ████████ █ █████████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
whether any of ███ █████████ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ██ ███ ███████
It doesn't matter what roles any employee previously filled—we're only concerned with average seniority between writers and programmers, and this doesn't help us to evaluate that.
b
how the average █████████ ██ ███████████ ████████ ████ ███ ███████ █████████ ██ █████████ ███████
This is exactly what we need to evaluate the argument. If the average writer's seniority properly results in 20% more pay than the average programmer, the executive’s argument is strengthened. However if this isn't the case, the executive's argument that the disparity is acceptable based on seniority falls apart.
c
whether the sorts ██ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████ ████████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ████████
The argument is just about whether the average difference in salary and benefits between writers and programmers is justified. The type of benefits that workers receive doesn't help us evaluate that; it's just not relevant.
d
whether the Mytheco █████████ ███ ██ ███ ████ █ █████████ ██████ ████████ ██ ███████
This can't help us evaluate the argument because it wouldn't provide any information about average seniority. All this does is suggest an ad hominem attack, which is a logical fallacy, not a weakening strategy.
e
how the Mytheco ███████████ ██████ ████████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ███████████
We’re not comparing between executives and programmers, we’re comparing between programmers and writers. The executive's salary doesn't help us to evaluate whether the disparity between writers and programmers is justified.