To: largely improve the strength of argument.
To: Nancy or Patti From:Qing (Ching) Wang Date: November 11, 2011 Subject: WMBA 514 Financial Statement Critique As part of the requirements for WMBA514, I have prepared an assessment of “A Message from the Present and CEO” in the 2010 Annual Report of Ford Motor Company.
Overall, the document has exemplified strong communication according to the Analysis of Argument Measure. The three claims in the statement – great product, strong business, and better world – are clearly stated and substantiated. The claim-data-warrant units exist cross the entire passage consistently.For example, the first claim of ‘great products’ is directly followed by explicit and powerful data on the growth of the new vehicles models, market share percentage, and investment amount in each brand.
Warrants are only used when needed by stating (as highlighted in the enclosed markup) how great product ties directly to market, profits, and brand strength. Likewise in the claim of ‘strong business’, specific and well-developed data are presented, in order of importance, with a great variety covering income, debt, cash flow, and operating profit.Warrants are used to some extent by relating profits with performance and investment ability. Next, the claim of ‘better world’ is first supported by a brief warrant that ‘fuel economy and CO2 emission’ impacts the world. Well-organized data are subsequently presented in details on Ford’s traditional fuel-saving Eco-boost technology, innovated electrified vehicles, and community contribution.
Additional warrants are included to directly support the claim by arguing Ford’s effort promotes education, community and the like.Indeed, the aforementioned three claims are clearly stated. However the scope is too general and the specifics are not quantified. This creates a more intuitive than obvious connection between the claims and data, and therefore warrants were minimally used in the statement without deliberate attempt to relate data to the conclusions. Considering the target readers of the article include ordinary investors, the taken approach is fairly reasonable.
Nonetheless, more specific and quantified ‘claims’ (e. . , percentage in profit growth, cost reduction, community contribution amounts etc. ) will largely improve the strength of argument. In addition, direct ‘data’ comparisons will help to attract investors – for instance, compare Ford and its competitors, now and the proceeding year etc.
In summary, the statement is a good communication example, showing strong claim-data-warrant connections and serving its purpose well to encourage the market shareholders.