The notion that employing people who sleep less would have higher profit may seem cogent at first glance. Because the study shows the performance of a worker with a shorter sleep would act better in some aspects. Notwithstand, this argument is filled up with assumptions and logical mistakes. Three reasons would suffice to support that idea.
To begin with, the arguer incorrectly assumes that the sleep with the same period provides the same outcome. Specifically, there are abundant evidence shows the deep sleep could bring more benefits and make people energetic. Therefore, it is equally possible that deep sleep takes a more significant place in making sure the extraordinary performing rather than sleep less. This factor may also act as a main cause of faster growth. Hence, the more evidence is needed to preclude that explanation.
Moreover, the arguer fails to claim that sleeping less would bring all good feedback. However, well performance is decided by many aspects. That survey only provides the evidence of higher profit margins and faster growth. At the same time, they may become more careless and less energetic. This approach would not bring too many benefits than assuming. The arguer is necessary to glean more information to make sure how they live going in all aspects rather than some specific ones.
Finally, even if the assumptions above are true, the arguer still fails to assume that all people sleep less could perform exceptionally. Individuals are different. Employing could not simply depend on the sleep time without concerning working skills and educational background. At the same time, a specific people who sleep less may not act as the assumption, performing normally or even worse. So judging employing by according sleep time only seems unfair.
To sum up, the argument is less cogent than seems, for the lack of evidence to support assumptions. In order to rule out other explanations, it is essential to collect more information.
The notion that employing
people
who
sleep
less
would have higher profit may seem cogent at
first
glance.
Because
the study
shows
the performance of a worker with a shorter
sleep
would act better in
some
aspects.
Notwithstand
, this argument
is filled
up with
assumptions
and logical mistakes. Three reasons would suffice to support that
idea
.
To
begin
with, the arguer
incorrectly
assumes that the
sleep
with the same period provides the same outcome.
Specifically
, there are abundant
evidence
shows
the deep
sleep
could bring more benefits and
make
people
energetic.
Therefore
, it is
equally
possible that deep
sleep
takes a more significant place in making sure the extraordinary performing
rather
than
sleep
less
. This factor may
also
act as a main cause of faster growth.
Hence
, the more
evidence
is needed
to preclude that explanation.
Moreover
, the arguer fails to claim that sleeping
less
would bring all
good
feedback.
However
, well performance
is decided
by
many
aspects. That survey
only
provides the
evidence
of higher profit margins and faster growth. At the same
time
, they may become more careless and
less
energetic. This approach would not bring too
many
benefits than assuming. The arguer is necessary to glean more information to
make
sure how they
live
going in all aspects
rather
than
some
specific ones.
Finally
, even if the
assumptions
above are true, the arguer
still
fails to assume that all
people
sleep
less
could perform
exceptionally
. Individuals are
different
. Employing could not
simply
depend on the
sleep
time
without concerning working
skills
and educational background. At the same
time
, a specific
people
who
sleep
less
may not act as the
assumption
, performing
normally
or even worse.
So
judging employing by according
sleep
time
only
seems unfair.
To sum up, the argument is
less
cogent than seems, for the lack of
evidence
to support
assumptions
. In order to
rule
out other explanations, it is essential to collect more information.