\In the argument, the author claims that Q reduce its work shifts by one hour each in order to reduce its on-the-job accident rate and thereby increase Q’s productivity. To support this, the author cites several evidences: firstly, last year the number of accidents at Q was 30% greater than at P, where work shifts were one hour shorter. in addition, certain experts believe that many on-the-job accidents are caused by fatigue and sleep deprivation. Close scrutiny, however, reveals that it suffers from several logical flaws as follow.
First and foremost, the argument observes a correlation between P' shorter work shifts and P's lower on-the-job accidents, then concludes that the former is the cause of the latter. Nevertheless, the author fails to rule out other reasons. For example, since P's statistical methods are different from other companies, it only counts several heavy accidents. Moreover, P might take the productive security serious, or P's employees are all with high quality. Any of these factors might lead to the low frequency of on-the-job accidents. Without ruling out all of such factors, the argument is untenable.
Secondly, even though P's shorter work shifts result in its low frequency of accidents, it is unfair to assume that P will be a valuable example for Q. Since excepting from work shifts hours and on-the-job accidents, there are no other information about two companies presented in the argument. Perhaps, P's jobs allow it has 7 hours work shift, without any side effects on productivity, whereas, Q's jobs are more continuous, which needs every employee work longer. Thus, P's strategy is not suitable for Q. Therefore, without showing that the two firms are similar in all of related respects, the author cannot justify his opinion that by implementing P's work shift polict, Q would also reduce on-the-job accidents, with few adverse effects on its productivity.
Last but not least, the author unfairly assumes that Q’s workers would use the additional hour of free time to sleep or rest. However, the author provides no evidence that they would use the time in this manner. It is entirely possible that workers would use that extra hour to engage in some other fatiguing activity. Without ruling out this possibility the author cannot convincingly conclude that reducing Q’s work shifts by one hour would reduce Q’s accident rate.
To sum up, the arguer fails to substantiate the claim that adopting P's shorter work shifts would result in the decrease of Q's on-the-job accidents. The arguer would have to provide more evidence with regard to the causality between P's work shifts and its on-the-job accidents. Additionally, he would have to justify his assumption that Both of two companies are comparable. Furthermore, I would need more information concerning that employees at Q must avail the time saved to have a rest rather than to do other things and avoiding fatigue and sleep deprivation must lead to the decrease of accidents.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 345, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: In
...here work shifts were one hour shorter. in addition, certain experts believe that ...
^^
Line 1, column 458, Rule ID: CLOSE_SCRUTINY[1]
Message: Use simply 'scrutiny'.
Suggestion: Scrutiny
...aused by fatigue and sleep deprivation. Close scrutiny, however, reveals that it suffers from ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 534, Rule ID: AS_FOLLOW[1]
Message: Did you mean 'as follows'?
Suggestion: as follows
...t it suffers from several logical flaws as follow. First and foremost, the argument ob...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, whereas, for example, in addition, to sum up, with regard to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 72.0 55.5748502994 130% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2522.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 487.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17864476386 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69766713281 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74337874509 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 242.0 204.123752495 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.496919917864 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 757.8 705.55239521 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.22255489022 237% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.7027274202 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.652173913 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1739130435 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.91304347826 5.70786347227 139% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 16.0 6.88822355289 232% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.231041166588 0.218282227539 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0697549693941 0.0743258471296 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0705115657913 0.0701772020484 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.141714163764 0.128457276422 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0812187022815 0.0628817314937 129% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.37 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 98.500998004 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.