The following appeared as part of an article in a business magazine."A recent study rating 300 male and female advertising executives according to the average number of hours they sleep per night showed an association between the amount of sleep the execu

In this argument, the author suggests that businesses hire only people with the need of sleeping for less than six hours per night. This assertion is based on a recent study of executives reflecting the relationship between the amount of sleep needed and the success of business, a report that firms with executives needing less sleep gain more profit, and a deduction that people who sleep less can bring more benefit to their company. Nonetheless, certain crucial evidence fails to be presented, which seriously undermine the validity of the conclusion.

The author mentions that a study concerning 300 executives shows the relevance of sleep and success in business. He apparently assumes that the size of sample is cogent enough to reflect the real condition of these respondents. Yet there is a probability that most of the respondents are so young and energetic as to undertake heavy assignments with little rest, or males among them are far more than females so that collectivity tends to need less recess. In this case, less sleep means higher efficiency. Therefore a larger sample and more details about these executives are required in order to warrant the cogency of the survey.

Even though there is an association between the amount of sleep and the success of firms, the author should not assert that firms with executives needing less sleep benefit more comparatively. It is clearly presumed that gaining profit equals to the success of a company. He might neglect that, however, the seemingly benefit is at a cost of the employee’s health, which would turn out to be a heavy burden for the company. Undertaking these potential payments, companies are more likely to regard the reduction on sleep as loss instead of benefit. Accordingly, the author needs to present more financial analysis to illustrate the liability of profit gained by a decrease of sleep.

Even if less sleep actually benefits for companies’ financial growth, the author can hardly rush to the suggestion that businesses hire only people who need less than six hours of sleep per night. He obviously premises that employees of any kind share the same relationship between the amount of sleep and the success of one’s business. Nonetheless, some positions such as engineer and worker, who need long-time concentration, tend to have lower efficiency without much enough rest. If people with less need of sleep are hired, their company will inevitably loss to those obtaining more efficient employees. Thus businesses should assess more objective and comprehensive judgement while recruiting new employees.

Conclusively, the author proposes that businesses hire only people who need sleep for less than six hours per night. Nevertheless, failing to provide some critical evidence for its convincing, the argument is severely impaired.