The Author states that the company's over all profit increased due to the free lunch provided. The author places the point that the free lunch scheme will motivate the employees to remain in the company for more time. Also the profit of the company increased at the same period. But argument placed by the author is vague and lacks sufficient evidences
Firstly, the author assumes that the employees go out of the company to have their lunch. This might not be the case as the employees might bring their lunch from home or they might be having their lunch from the office canteen by paying for the food. Also we do not know about what proportion of the employees are going out of the company for lunch. if that proportion is comparatively less we cannot say that the free lunch scheme will not have much effect in making the employee to remain in building for more hours.
Secondly, the author assumes that the number of hours worked by employees on an average is less previously. We can not assume that all the employees worked for less hours previously. Some employees might have worked for more hours than other employees. Also we are unsure if the each employees work hour is increased by this scheme. If some proportion of the employees still have less working hours per day then the plan will be still ineffective.
Finally, the author assumes that the free lunch scheme is the only factor that increased the profit. There may be other reasons for the increase in the increase in production such as increase in demand, raise in market price etc. For instance if the demand for the product, the company Z manufactures, is more then the profit earned by the company will be more substantially. Also the company might have marked up the price of its product which in turn have increase the profit of the product in the same period.
Altogether, the author has placed her argument that free lunch provided in company Z has propelled the company's growth but failed to provide evidence for the same. In order to make her argument stronger she should have provide some evidences. for instance she should have provided evidence that the employees in company Z are spending more time idle during lunch time. also she should have provided evidence that all the employees have improved their working hours after the scheme was implemented. without these the argument stands weak.