The author cites that fact that a new employee needs to be trained before they work,
so an on-line training program will be recommanded by this company to help the company
save training costs. To support this argument, the author provides the evidence that
the face-to-face training will cost a lot compared with the on-line one. This argument
sounds somewhat convincing, but after a quick but careful analysis, it is problematic in
three aspects. Firstly, the promoting company fails to take the costs of purchasing the
on-line software into consideration. This argument just oversimplifies the cost of the software
purchasing by thinking that the face-to-face training will cost a lot from both the experienced
employees and new ones. However, this is not the case. Learning the personal training from the
experienced employees, the new employees can maximize their involvements in the program and can
obtain the first-hand experiences from them. For example, Alibaba pays almost 10% of their annual
expenses on employees training by sending them out to overseas to learn the lastest knowledge and
skills. If Alibaba simply offered the on-line training, there is not enough interaction for its
employees to improve their skills timely and combine with their real experience in the real world.
Secondly, even if the costs of the purchasing are affordable, not every employee is necessary to be
fully trained. The program also commits a fallacy that all of the new employees need to be trained
on-line equally. However, if there are some new employees who are experienced in the same industry
for couple years, but they just new to the company, it is not necessary to train them fully on-line.
On the contrary, they just need some proper training of the company and get better prepared.
Moreover,some positions are not required to be trained on-line, such as the cleaners and so on.
If the company just thinks everyone needs to be trained on-line and more costs will be wasted
on unnecessary purchasing of the programs. Therefore, if the company can clearly classify the
groups of employees that need on-line training, more costs will be saved. Thirdly, even if the costs
can be saved from training, it does not guarantee that the profitability will increase. The
argument fails to claim that how much percent of costs that training takes up and it also omits
the sales of the company which also has significant influence on the profits. For example,
if the cost budgets of training just merely takes up a small amount of the total costs, there is no
reason for the company to spend so much money to purchase the on-line program. Moreover, if sales
of the company still keep the same or drop down due to the inefficent management structures, wrong
developing strategies, the profits will undoubtedly drop. Without taking other factors into
consideration, it is imprudent forthe author to promise that the purchase of the on-line software
will increase the company's profits. Overall, the arugment omits some very significant factors that
should have been taken into consideration, so it is neither convincing nor persuasive. To bolster
the conclusion, more evidences should be provided in the arugument. Only by doing this can the
argument be more compelling and logical.