The conclusion in this memorandum is that employees of company X feel that improvement has been
made by regular communication between managers and workers. To support the argument, the author
provides several facts that a survey has been made about need improvement, and that management
has paid highly attention to improved communication. However, close scrutiny reveals that these
facts lend little support to the author’s conclusion.
In the first place, the author seems to assume that since communication between management and
employees was ranked as most vital improved issue, regular communication sessions conducted by
high-level management have solved this problem. The argument is clearly mistaken. If the
communication problem has been solved, employees would not be likely to regard communication as
the most important issue needed improved. Contrary to the author’s claim, these facts actually
conversely reflect that most workers still feel improvement is needed. Unless the author could
provide more information and alternatives explanation about result of survey, the conclusion may
hold no ground to support the conclusion.
Second, it is highly doubtful that institute regular communication is applicable to improve
communication between managers and employees. We are not given enough information to be sure that
institute regular communication by high-level management has an effect on communication issue.
Moreover, participation of institute regular communication is voluntary to employees. Which
means workers might little possible to join management meeting without enough brevity. Thus,
there is no guarantee that institute regular communication focus on the issue of communication,
making an improvement.
Finally, argument depends on unproven logical relationship. All facts supplied by author are
little reliable to justify that communication issue has improved. No evidence is to show
employees reaction. Consequently, the conclusion that employees at Company X now feel that the
improvement most needed at the company has been made is unwarranted. There is no logical
connection between institute regular communication and employees’ response. More causable
explanations are needed to testify the accuracy of conclusion.
In sum, it is imprudent for author draw this conclusion simply on the basis of these evidences
presented. To solidify the argument, the author has to providing more evidences and reasonable
explanation to confirm the conclusion. In addition, the author should consider that institute
regular communication does not necessarily solved communication issue. Furthermore, above
mentioned possibilities that may undermine conclusion should be pointed out.