AI-46，代友发文，请拍砖~

"Our research indicates that over the past six years no incidents of employee theft have been repotted within ten of the companies that have been our clients. In analyzing the security practices of these ten companies, we have further learned flint that each of them requires its employees to wear photo identification badges while at work. In the future, therefore, we should recommend the use of such identification badges to all of our clients."

Discuss how well reasoned.., etc.

21:17

Based on the research that shows each of the ten firms without security problem requires its employees to wear badges, the speaker claims that the consulting firm should recommend all the clients to follow the same practice. While I agree that the research result has some merits in demonstrating the effectiveness of the badges, careful scrutiny reveals the pitfalls in the argument as explained below. 

My first concern is whether the six-year sample could represent well the general situation. Perhaps the crime rate countrywide during the past six years is unusually low so that it is not surprising or indicative that the ten companies sampled have no incidents. Or perhaps, the firm intentionally chooses the six-year period of time, and if we see on a ten-year basis, the theft has happened quite often, while the all the factors related to theft remain unchanged. Without ruling out such possibilities, the speaker can not generalize any conclusion based on what has happened during the six-year period.

Similarly, I have doubt on how the ten clients have been selected and whether they can reflect all the companies. On one side, the speaker just focuses on their clients, but companies the consulting firm has never served could have better ideas in preventing theft. On the other, we have no information of how many companies in total are the clients, and therefore, cannot judge whether the sample is sufficiently large. 

More importantly, the speaker implicitly assumes, that badges are the only reason that leads to the situation, without providing any evidence to justify this assumption. It is quite likely that each of the ten firms has their own way to combat theft and this only way, rather the badges, is what is indeed effective. The fact that all the ten firms have used badges does not mean that badges are overwhelmingly effective in reducing the theft. Clearly, the argument is oversimplified here. 

To sum up, the speaker does not provide enough evidence about the methodology used in the research is correct. And in further support his recommendation, he fails to take into consideration of other factors that may affect the theft more. To make the argument convincing, we should at least know how the research is conducted and investigate further into all the factors related to the theft.

请大家多提意见哈！