When to re-assign work or cut pay?

Source: Today, 13/1/9, p.16 (letters)
Headline: Still good at 62
Author: By Rick Lim Say Kiong

Quote1:
Employers should also consider productivity as a factor when it comes to negotiating re-employment terms and conditions, especially in job scope and pay.

Comment1:
This states the writer's position.

Quote2:
Why shouldn't a 62-year-old employee continue in his job with the same pay if he has been and will be productive in his current job?

Comment2:
This is another statement of the same position, as applied to a 62-year-old employee. The statement's being presented as a question is a literary device known as a rhetorical question. There is an inherent risk in using this device: a reader may not recognise that it is intended to be a statement and not a question. It is best not to use rhetorical questions. Just make the statement.

Quote3:
The moment an older worker reaches the age of 62, is he suddenly undependable, weak and inefficient in his work? If not, why is it deemed necessary for him to be allocated to another job scope to suit his "capabilities" or for him to take a pay cut?

Comment3:
Here, we have more than a rhetorical question fronting for a statement; we have two rhetorical questions fronting for an argument:

Premiss1: If and only if (undependable, weak & inefficient), then (change job scope or cut pay)
Premiss2: Not-(undependable, weak & inefficient)[at 62]
Conclusion: Hence, not-(change job scope or cut pay)[at 62]

Premiss1 states a biconditional relation; where both terms are simultaneously true or false. Premiss2 states that the first term (undependable, weak & inefficient) is not true. The conclusion completes the argument by stating that we should not (change job scope or cut pay).

This argument form is valid, meaning that the premisses do entail the conclusion. Premiss2 is intuitively true: in general, one does not suddenly become (undependable, weak & inefficient) upon reaching age 62. That leaves Premiss1. Is Premiss1 true? Is (undependable, weak & inefficient) the only reason for (change job scope or cut pay)?

Quote4:
Many employers are keen to use the statutory retirement age [62] as a reason to cut pay or even to demean employees to the point of resignation.

Comment4:
This says that some employers think (age 62) is another reason for (cut pay). Resignation is a new point, not mentioned in the argument.

Quote5:
But in a market where experienced, dedicated and still-productive workers are difficult to come by, losing a long-serving employee is not of any benefit to the company.

Comment5:
This addresses the new point of "demean employees to the point of resignation", which is a point not mentioned in the argument.

END

The Shinjuku dilemma

Source: The Straits Times, 10/1/9, p.E22
Headline: No China date for Jackie film

Quote1:
HONGKONG: Emperor Motion Pictures has announced the Asian release dates for Jackie Chan's new film [The Shinjuku Incident] -- except in China, where its subject matter may have raised flags for the country's censors. ... In an interview with China's Nanfang Daily, the film's co-producer, Henry Fong, said he and [Director Derek] Yee had given up the mainland market.

Comment1:
Conclusion: Not-(mainland market)

What's the argument that leads to this conclusion?

Quote2:
Fong was quoted as saying: "If we make big changes at the mainland censors' requests, then the movie won't be interesting. If we don't make changes, it won't be passed."

Comment2:
We have a dilemma: two options, each with unpleasant consequences.

1. If (big changes), then (movie not interesting)
2. If (no change), then (movie won't be passed)

They consider the strategy of "going between the horns", that is, of discovering a third option.

Quote3:
"If we change it to two versions, one for the mainland, one for Hongkong, then we will be breaking the rules." The film is a Hongkong-China co-production. Producers are known to release one version of a movie for China and another version for Hongkong. But the practice is not permitted for Hongkong-Chinese co-productions. -- AP.

Comment3:
Here is Option 3:

3. If (two versions), then (break rules)

This third option is not viable.

We return to the original two options. they choose the less of two evils: movie won't be passed. This means the movie will not be released in the mainland market.

Hence, the conclusion: Not-(mainland market).

END

On the Satyam scandal

Source: My Paper, 9/1/9, p.A10
Headline: Satyam scandal will feed fears

Quote1:
The [Satyam] scandal underscores the risks of investing in a market with insufficient regulatory oversight and protections.

Comment1:
The word "insufficient" guarantees that some calamity will occur -- by definition. This feature in logic is known as a tautology, or a petitio.

Quote2:
Said Mr Geoffrey Coll, co-head of law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf's India practice group: "When you are dealing with riskier regulatory environments like India or other emerging markets, there are real risks that the companies are being held to lower standards by their own internal regulators than companies in the West." -- Reuters.

Comment2:
"Riskier regulatory environments" by definition means "real risks [of] ... lower standards". No new information is provided. This is another tautology or petitio.

END