Here is the situation I have to write about:
Week 1 Discussion
My friend, who is an LPN, wanted to accept an offer of a work from home position, as she felt it would give her more time with her son. The position was newly created and involved clinical senior follow up. Considering the responsibilities of the position, I didn’t happen to agree with her thinking, as just because you are working from home does not mean you have more control of your time. I noted that she knew me to be a thorough thinker, and to consider that this particular job monitored your call volume, as well as the time on and off calls. There were also daily goals and metrics that had to be met, and there was no flexibility in the hours of contact. My argument was that given the parameters of this particular position, she would not be afforded the flexibility of arranging her time so that she could have extended interaction with her son during the day. In addition to the aforementioned responsibilities, she would be interacting with seniors who may have hearing challenges, so background noise would also be an issue. Most impactful, was when I was able to search the internet and find reviews of individuals who held similar jobs that noted their experiences which were in line with my concerns.
Using Ethos, the credibility of my history of thought, and Logos, the evidence of the employee reviews, my argument was successful, and my friend turned down the position. She thoughtfully considered my comments, but the most significant, or persuasive element of my argument was when she was able to actually see the reviews of the other individuals who were working in jobs similar to the one she was thinking of accepting. Ironically, a few months later we ran into a friend of ours who had accepted the same type of position she had been considering, and her complaint was that things were not as she thought they would be regarding flexibility and she had just tendered her resignation!
Respond to peers’ main posts with replies of 100-150 words each, answer the following questions:
• Was the situation described clearly and with enough detail to envision the situation?
• Reflect on the results. Could the situation have been handled differently? If so, how?
• Identify areas of Ethos-Logos-Pathos and specify which of the three your peer’s argument relied on most heavily.
• Suggest areas of Ethos-Logos-Pathos that could have been used to make your peer’s argument successful or stronger.
• Have you ever encountered or witnessed a similar situation? How did you handle it?
