The success of a company correlates directly with the average job satisfaction of its employees.

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experiences, observations, or reading.

The speaker claims that a company’s success correlates directly with the average job satisfaction of its employees. I agree with the statement above because employee job satisfaction increases workforce productivity and reduces chances of employee turnover within a firm.

It is obvious that a satisfied employee will carry out the tasks assigned most efficiently and effectively. A satisfied employee will feel part of the overall organizational goals of the firm and will contribute positively to the firm’s mission. Moreover, when a company’s current employees are usually satisfied, it has the greater potential to attract more talented employees in the future that ultimately benefit the company. Since talented employees can provide intelligent business ideas and have a greater chance to come up with innovative products and services, the chances of success are even more likely for that company.

In addition, greater job satisfaction will lead to lower turnover rates in the company. The lower turnover rates mean that employees will remain in the company for a longer period of time than would be the case for a company with lower job satisfaction among employees. Lower turnover rates lead to less disruption within the company and it can carry out its activities relatively smoothly in order to achieve its desired goals.

However, it is also to be noted that job satisfaction is not the only deciding factor for success of an organization. Effective business policy, marketing and advertising strategies, and cost-efficiency are important factors that can decide whether a company will be successful or not.

In conclusion, it is widely accepted that average job satisfaction will raise the chances of success for a company due to greater productivity among employees and less disruption as a result of lower employee turnover.

Many nonprescription drugs can cause serious side effects, particularly when taken in conjunction with other drugs or in large quantities. If these potentially harmful nonprescription drugs were sold only by prescription, then a doctor or pharmacist would be able to explain the possible side effects of the drug and would also be able to monitor the quantity of the drug purchased, thereby decreasing the chance that a person would take too much of the drug. Therefore, any drug with potentially serious side effects should be sold only by prescription.

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative examples or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

In the argument above, the author states that non-prescription drugs should be sold only by prescription. Although the author is concerned about the potential harmful effects of various non-prescription drugs, the argument is flawed because it falsely assumes that selling those drugs by prescription would make users realize about their harmful effects and thereby reduce their overall usage of those drugs as these drugs can be addictive. It also fails to take into account that an illegal for those harmful drugs can be set up where they would be sold without prescription if there were a high demand for it.

First, the author assumes that if the drugs are sold my prescription, there will be more awareness about the harmful effects of those drugs. The author fails to take into account that many harmful drugs are highly addictive and in spite of repeated warnings about their potential side effects, if users become addicted to it, it is highly likely that they will continue using those drugs. Thereby, this greatly reduces the possibility of a person reducing the usage of those drugs.

Secondly, it has been assumed that if drugs are sold by prescription, its usage can be easily controlled. If there were a demand for those harmful drugs, there is a good chance that illegal markets for those drugs would be established where the drugs would be sold without any prescription. Therefore, only establishing certain rules and regulations in chemist shops cannot necessarily control drug usage.

Alternatively, excessive usage of harmful drugs can be lowered by educating the general public about the harmful effects of those drugs on a larger scale and by increasing greater awareness among the general public.

In conclusion, selling harmful drugs by prescription is not good enough a measure to reduce their usage since the drugs can be highly addictive and black markets for the drugs can be established which will worsen the overall situation.