The GRE Argument task requires the candidate to analyze the logical soundness of the argument rather than agree or disagree with the judgment it presents. This GRE argument sample essay talks about the implementation of electronic monitoring of employee’s internet use from their work stations to improve employees’ productivity. More such topics are available for candidates to practice in GRE writing practice papers.

Topic: The vice president of human resources at Climpson Industries sent the following recommendation to the company's president.

"In an effort to improve our employees' productivity, we should implement electronic monitoring of employees' Internet use from their workstations. Employees who use the Internet from their workstations need to be identified and punished if we are to reduce the number of work hours spent on personal or recreational activities, such as shopping or playing games. By installing software to detect employees' Internet use on company computers, we can prevent employees from wasting time, foster a better work ethic at Climpson, and improve our overall profits."

Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

Answer:

The argument presented by the Vice President of human resources at Climpson Industries does not consider the sole human factor which should be contemplated as the basis of the entire argument. His argument roughly translates to “do a few amends in the machine to make it work twice as fast”. The entire statement is rugged, vague and wholly based on a high degree of unwise assumptions.

To begin with, one should bring facts to the table to make an argument valid. The argument presented by Climpson’s Vice President of human resources does not provide any statistical data analysis or facts that prove restraining employees from using the internet for personal or recreational activities will have the potential to improve the Company’s productivity and profit. This argument bears threats. There can be dire consequences that may backfire on the company.

Also, check:

To counter the argument, where it expresses a wish to increase employee productivity by monitoring and punishing them is very extremist and catastrophic. These little breaks of recreation throughout the day are helping the employees to cope with stress and frustration from the workload. These breaks give them more room to be productive. Trying to impose severe rules, standing on unsubstantiated hypotheses, and using words such as ‘monitoring’ and ‘punishment’ like the company is trying to tame a wild horse and not concerning with a human being will only have the employee negatively comprehend his\her outlook towards the company.

Acknowledging the human factor here, the point of monitoring employees’ work devices and having them reveal their data will only make them grow skeptical about the company’s damaging intentions towards them. On the contrary, this restriction may tempt employees to spend more time trying to hide their web browsing than they would spend browsing on their work devices. Also, it is likely to frustrate employees and negatively impact their morale. The lack of recreation and the soaring stress may also build-up to the employee having a breakdown at the workplace. Usually, an employee is allowed to take a smoke break, then why should the other one be punished for doing a relaxation activity?

The argument only presents a loose suggestion of introducing a monitoring system without any particulars about how much cost the company may have to bear to install it. There is no mention of any solid procedure to execute it. These huge loopholes in the argument make the suggested restrictions fall right through it.

By introducing the restraints there was no solid guarantee from the author’s side that it would increase productivity. The author has only staged some possibilities which do not promise any certain or stable outcome, masking it under the name of 'an effort'. The argument lacks basic logical reasoning and rationality. It declares that the employees are using the work devices for the sole purpose of gaming and shopping without regard to the fact that the employees are capable of using those devices for personal constructive purposes. The argument fails to prove the effectiveness of the technology which would be monitoring the employees and to what extent it will monitor them while disregarding the employee's privacy.

While there is a certain need for employees to maintain decorum at the workplace, by not involving in unethical activities through work-issued devices and putting a security risk on the company’s confidential data, banning personal internet usage altogether might not be the best solution.

There are other simpler solutions to this, which makes the argument extremely fallible. If the author would have had approached his concerns in an ergonomic manner, improved the diction of his argument, and done his thorough research about the company’s current position and employee statistics he would have had come up with substitute techniques that would have made his argument valid. These techniques could have been limiting personal use of work devices to break times, defining what type of personal use work devices are allowed, and setting clear productivity expectations which would have been better suited for the company as well as the employees. Or the suggestion could have been, encouraging Climpson to introduce a computer policy which would have outlined the guidelines about the company’s expectation from its employees for the use of work devices. Including the information about how much personal use of work devices should be allowed and where to draw the line, would have supported his argument as well. Define how productivity will be measured, and foster an environment that emphasizes employee autonomy, the key here is to set clear expectations.

In conclusion, by considering all the above points, the argument presented by the vice president of human resources lacks to address the fundamental facts, figures and it is solely based on incoherent assumptions without taking the human psychology\ human factor into account, it is not as powerful as the intentions behind it.