What should you do when

an employee discloses a
mental health condition?

1. Identify the conclusion(s) / hypothesis / opinion of the writer.

In conclusion, being a supportive manager for your people who may be struggling
because of some mental health condition is a crucial aspect of fostering a positive and inclusive work
environment. By following the steps outlined above, you can create a safe space for your employees
to disclose their mental health concerns, offer your support, and connect them with the resources
they need to manage their condition effectively. Remember, open communication, empathy, and a
willingness to help can make a significant difference in the lives of your employees.

2. List out the arguments used by the author to support the conclusion / hypothesis / opinion.
Here are the arguments used by the author to support the conclusion that being a supportive
manager for employees with mental health conditions is important:

 It is important to thank employees for sharing their mental health conditions with you. This
shows that you are an empathetic and supportive manager, and it can help to create a safe
space for employees to disclose their mental health concerns.
 It is important to listen to employees with an open heart and without judgment. This means
being respectful of their feelings and experiences and avoiding making assumptions about
their condition.
 It is important to express your desire to help employees with mental health conditions. This
does not mean that you need to be able to solve all of their problems, but it does mean that
you should be willing to listen and offer support.
 It is important to keep conversations about mental health confidential. This means not
sharing information with other employees or making assumptions about what the employee
is comfortable with.
 It is important to be proactive in making the workplace a safer place for employees with
mental health conditions. This might include offering flexible work arrangements, providing
access to mental health resources, or creating a workplace culture that is supportive and
open.
 It is important to reach out to the human resource department for help in supporting
employees with mental health conditions. The HR department can provide additional
resources and support, and they can help to develop policies and procedures that are
supportive of all employees.

By following these tips, managers can create a more supportive and inclusive work environment for
all employees, including those with mental health conditions.

3. What errors / incompleteness did you notice in the arguments, which may put a question mark
on the conclusion / opinion.
Overall, the article provides some helpful advice on how to be a supportive manager for employees
who may be struggling with mental health conditions. However, the article could be improved by
providing more evidence to support its claims, by providing more specific guidance on how to handle
situations that may arise, and by providing more specific resources for managers to reference

4. Did the author show any biases in the arguments? Explain at least 1 or 2.
Yes, the author shows a few biases in their arguments.
1. The author assumes that all employees with mental health conditions will be open to discussing
their condition with their manager.
This is not always the case. Some employees may be reluctant to discuss their mental health with
their manager due to fear of stigma or discrimination. The author could have acknowledged this
possibility and provided suggestions for how to encourage employees to open up about their mental
health.
2. The author suggests that the manager should be prepared to "listen with an open heart" and
"without judgments."
While it is important for managers to be empathetic and understanding, it is also important for them
to be able to set boundaries and maintain a professional relationship with their employees. The
author could have provided more guidance on how to balance these two goals.
Overall, the author provides some helpful advice for managers who are dealing with employees with
mental health conditions. However, they could have done a better job of acknowledging the
potential for bias and providing more nuanced guidance.

5. Any other critical comments you have on the article.

The article could provide more specific examples of policies, programs, and measures that
organizations have adopted to help people struggling with their mental health.

The article could provide more in-depth advice on how to listen to an employee with a mental health
condition. For example, it could suggest using open-ended questions, avoiding judgmental language,
and validating the employee's feelings.

The article could provide more guidance on how to keep a conversation about mental health
confidential. For example, it could suggest using a private space to talk and avoiding sharing
information with others without the employee's consent.

The article could provide more information on how to connect an employee with mental health
resources. For example, it could provide links to websites or hotlines that offer support.

The article could conclude with a stronger call to action for managers to take steps to support their
employees' mental health.

Overall, the article provides a good overview of how managers can support employees with mental
health conditions. However, it could be improved by providing more specific and actionable advice.
 Innovate, Integrate,
Empower: Startups
shaping the future of work
with cutting-edge
solutions.
1. Identify the conclusion(s) / hypothesis / opinion of the writer.
The article concludes that TalentOnLease, Munshi AI, and Knit are not merely offering services but
spearheading a paradigm shift. These startups are carving out their niche and addressing vital
challenges in the HR space. As the world hurtles towards an AI-powered future, their collective
commitment to human-machine collaboration promises to propel HR solutions to new heights,
ultimately shaping a more dynamic, adaptable, and efficient workforce for the future.

2. List out the arguments used by the author to support the conclusion / hypothesis / opinion.

 HR tech startups are addressing vital challenges in the HR space.

 TalentOnLease is redefining talent acquisition with its Tech Hiring Platform.
 Munshi AI is amplifying user experience with its WhatsApp-powered interface.
 Knit is seamlessly integrating existing systems with its low-code approach.
 These startups are committed to human-machine collaboration, which will propel HR
solutions to new heights.

3. What errors / incompleteness did you notice in the arguments, which may put a question mark
on the conclusion / opinion.
Here is a summary of the errors and incompleteness I noticed in the arguments of the article, which
may put a question mark on the conclusion/opinion:

TalentOnLease

The article states that TalentOnLease's Tech Hiring Platform "ensures clients can commence work
within 48-72 hours". However, there is no evidence to support this claim.

The article claims that TalentOnLease is a "reliable and specialized solution in the HR technology
market". However, there is no comparison to other HR technology solutions to support this claim.

Munshi AI

The article states that Munshi AI is "the catalyst that amplifies the performance of all your existing
HR platforms". However, there is no explanation of how Munshi AI actually achieves this.

The article claims that Munshi AI is "the magic pill that enhances usage and performance of all your
current employees' systems and platforms using cutting-edge AI". However, this is a hyperbolic claim
that is not supported by evidence.
Knit

The article states that Knit is "an ecosystem enabler rather than a direct competitor to HR tech
tools". However, the article does not explain how Knit actually enables this ecosystem.

The article claims that Knit's unique value proposition is its ability to "amplify the capabilities of
existing technology stacks". However, there is no explanation of how Knit actually achieves this.

The article states that Knit has a "library of 40+ integrations accessible through a user-friendly low-
code approach". However, the article does not provide any examples of these integrations.

Overall, the article is overly promotional and does not provide enough evidence to support its claims.
The conclusion that these startups are "spearheading a paradigm shift" and that their collective
commitment to human-machine collaboration "promises to propel HR solutions to new heights" is
not well-supported by the evidence presented in the article.

4. Did the author show any biases in the arguments? Explain at least 1 or 2.

The author is biased towards the companies they are interviewing. They only present positive
information about the companies and do not discuss any potential drawbacks or limitations of their
products or services. For example, the author states that TalentOnLease is "a beacon of innovation
and precision" and that Munshi AI is "the catalyst that amplifies the performance of all your existing
HR platforms." These statements are overly positive and do not provide a balanced view of the
companies. Additionally, the author does not mention any other HR tech startups that may be
providing similar solutions. This suggests that the author may be biased towards these particular
companies.

5. Any other critical comments you have on the article.

Here are some other critical comments I have on the article:

 The article could provide more information on the specific products or services that each
startup offers.
 The article could provide more in-depth analysis of the challenges that each startup is
addressing.
 The article could provide more concrete examples of how each startup is impacting the HR
space.
 The article could provide a more comprehensive overview of the HR tech landscape.
 The article could provide a more nuanced discussion of the role of AI in HR tech.

Overall, the article provides a good overview of three innovative HR tech startups. However, it could
be improved by providing more specific and actionable information.
 Free Your People from the
Need for Social Approval

1. Identify the conclusion(s) / hypothesis / opinion of the writer.

The best performers are able to push past the perceived limits of their
potential, but the higher they rise on the career ladder, the more susceptible
they become to scrutiny. They often fall prey to an anxious state the author
calls fear of people’s opinions. FOPO is a hidden epidemic and may be the
single greatest constrictor of individual and collective potential.

Concern about what others think is an irrational, unproductive, and

unhealthy obsession—and a big contributor to the general anxiety people feel
at work. This article discusses the causes of FOPO and how to help your
employees break free from it.

2. List out the arguments used by the author to support the conclusion /
hypothesis / opinion.

The author used the following arguments to support the conclusion that HR
tech startups are spearheading a paradigm shift in the HR industry:

 TalentOnLease is a pioneer in tech talent solutions, addressing the

critical shortage of top-tier tech talent.
 Munshi AI is redefining HR tech with a WhatsApp-powered revolution,
making HR processes more intuitive and inclusive.
 Knit is championing seamless integration for enhanced HR tech
ecosystems, saving valuable time and resources.

3. What errors / incompleteness did you notice in the arguments, which may
put a question mark on the conclusion / opinion.

The arguments used by the author are somewhat incomplete. For example,
the author does not provide any specific examples of how TalentOnLease's
Tech Hiring Platform has helped clients find the talent they need. Similarly,
the author does not provide any specific examples of how Munshi AI's AI
capabilities have improved the HR experience for employees. Finally, the
author does not provide any specific examples of how Knit's ecosystem
enabler role has helped HR tech companies deliver heightened value to
clients.

4. Did the author show any biases in the arguments? Explain at least 1 or 2.

The author does not appear to show any biases in the arguments. However, it
is important to note that the article is written from the perspective of a
technology journalist, and it is possible that the author has a subconscious
bias in favor of technology companies.
5. Any other critical comments you have on the article.

Overall, the article is well-written and informative. However, it would be more convincing if the
author provided more specific examples to support the arguments. Additionally, the article would be
more balanced if the author included some criticisms of HR tech startups.

India must think of Indians’ safety

1. Identify the conclusion(s) / hypothesis / opinion of the writer.

The writer's opinion is that India has a general callous attitude towards safety. This disregard is all-
pervasive, from the individual level to the government level. The writer argues that this attitude is
due to a number of factors, including the country's large population and its culture of "jugaad"
(solving problems with limited resources). The writer also argues that India's lack of regard for safety
is hindering its economic development. The writer suggests that there are a number of things that
can be done to address this problem. These include beefing up consumer and product safety laws,
improving enforcement of existing laws, and raising awareness of safety issues. The writer concludes
by saying that India has a long journey to move from "caveat emptor" (buyer beware) to "caveat
vendition" (seller beware). Before facilitating ease of living as part of economic development, the
country must first focus on promoting "safe living."

2. List out the arguments used by the author to support the conclusion / hypothesis / opinion

• There are a lot of things that have happened in India that show how careless people are when it
comes to safety, like the tunnel collapse in the state of Uttarakhand, polluted cities, a lot of road
accidents, and bad drugs.

• The government hasn't done much to stop people from taking advantage of safety standards, like
FSSAI taking away the "best before" date on containers or trays of loose sweets and the GOI dropping
their plan to make it compulsory for car owners to fit 6 airbags in their cars.

• Indian culture of problem-solving with limited resources has caused people to forget about safety.
• Legs that try to make sure the products people use are safe are either weak, hard to get around, or
just ignored.

3. What errors / incompleteness did you notice in the arguments, which may put a question mark
on the conclusion / opinion.

The author claims that the tunnel collapse in Uttarakhand is a sign of how careless India is with
safety. But they don't have any proof to back this up. They also say the government needs to create
enough deterrence to make people's safety a priority, but they don't explain how they'll do that.
Finally, they say India has a long way to go before they can say "buyer beware" and "seller beware".
But they don't explain what that means or how they'll do it.

4. Did the author show any biases in the arguments? Explain at least 1 or 2.

The author talks about how India's lack of safety standards can lead to a lot of issues, like pollution,
road deaths, and bad drugs. They also say that India's 'jugaad' culture, which is all about finding ways
to solve problems with limited resources, has meant that safety has been overlooked. They say that
India needs to switch from being a "caver emptor" to having a "caver vendition" mentality, where it's
up to the sellers to make sure their products are safe.

5. Any other critical comments you have on the article.

The author concluded that a shift in India's approach to safety is necessary in order to achieve the
status of a developed nation. There are some encouraging indications that some of India's
legislations are gradually improving their safety measures in relation to consumer and product
protection, including the Consumer Protection Law of 2019, Bharat's National Car Assessment
Program (NCAP) and the negotiations between the Drugs Control Board of India (DCBI) and the
Pharmaceutical Industry Association (PIBA) to revise manufacturing standards.