Business Editorial Analysis
Prompt: Choose an editorial article from within the past 5 years (An editorial is an article that presents the writer’s opinion on an issue supported with facts) from the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal or browse the library and choose an editorial that addresses a business issue that interests you. Instructions:
Write an summary describing the following:
Check out our Essay writing services
Business Editorial Analysis
- Citation of the article and a brief summary of its contents
- What are the premise(s) in the article?
- What evidence is presented? Is it credible?
- Can you independently verify the evidence presented?
- How are counterarguments addressed?
- Does the writer represent a particular interest?
- How is language used to develop the argument?
- Do you detect any errors in knowledge, evidence, or thinking?
- Does the writer use any types of appeals or commit any fallacies?
- Overall, how compelling is this article?
Article Summary and Premises
The editorial “Reduce Remote Workers’ Pay” was published by The Wall Street Journal in February 2025. It argues that employees working remotely should earn less compared to their in-office peers. The main premise is that pay should reflect cost-of-living differences and saved commuting expenses. Additionally, the author suggests that lowering remote salaries helps companies reduce costs while still offering flexibility.
Moreover, the article explains that remote employees avoid transportation, housing, and urban expenses. By contrast, office-based workers face higher living costs. Therefore, the writer insists that pay adjustments represent a fair solution. This claim is supported with economic data and workplace surveys, which are credible sources. Independent studies also confirm differences in living costs between urban and remote workers. Consequently, the reasoning presented appears plausible.
Evidence, Counterarguments, and Evaluation
The editorial highlights savings achieved by companies through reduced real estate and utility expenses. Furthermore, surveys on employee lifestyle costs reinforce the financial argument. However, counterarguments are not fully explored. For example, the author admits employees may resist pay cuts, yet does not evaluate retention or morale consequences. This narrow analysis slightly weakens the argument.
In addition, the writer’s perspective aligns strongly with employer interests. Terms such as “reduce corporate expenses” and “balance costs” demonstrate this business-centered focus. The use of logical appeals strengthens the argument, but ethical and emotional aspects receive limited attention. No major factual errors are detected, though the reasoning occasionally overlooks fairness concerns.
