During the past year workers at Butler Manufacturing reported 30 percent more on the job accidents than workers at nearby Panoply Industries where the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours A recent government study reports that fatigue and sleep depr

The argument concludes that Butler Manufacturing Will improve safety by reducing work shifts by one hour. The conclusion is based on the premise that reduction in work time will ensure that workers are adequately rested and would suffer less fatigue; hence it will ensure less accidents and improved safety. The reasoning in the argument isn logically flawed, however, as it relies on a number of assumptions and lack of proper evidence.

First, the author provides data on number of accidents only for the last year. This statement is unsupported without past data of past few years on number of major and minor on job accidents and injuries. It might be that in the past there were very few accidents even with the current shift hours and there might be some another reason for the increase in the accidents for the last year. Also, comparison with nearby Panoply industries is irrelevant unless unless its working conditions and nature of job is specified. It might be that nature of the work at Panoply is less hazardous; therefore there will be less number of accidents at Panoply. In addition, there is no information on number of accidents in panoply. There has to be statistics of two companies to compare the safety performance. Consequently, without this convincing information there is no reason to accept the claim in the argument.

Second, there is clarity on the scope of the government study reports. It might be the case that the area where Butler operates was not included in the study. Besides, the author does not confirm the reliability of the study; what is the accuracy of this study ? . Also the agency which conducted this study is that reliable and effective. There is no significant evidence on above mentioned questions. Therefore, the claim offered by the study report is weak and stretched. Also, argument ignores other possible reasons for sleep deprivation among workers. There might be other personal factors for lack of sleep among workers like watching late night movies, doing household activities etc. In addition, the author provides no information on the role of company in ensuring sleep deprivation; a company can only encourage workers to have proper sleep, it cannot enforce and ensure whether that is happening or not. Also, there is no information or survey to suggest that by reducing 1 hour of work shift workers will have better and complete sleep. Thus, the reasoning offered by citing the example of study is weak and unsupported.

Finally, the argument ignores other possible reasons for decline in safety like lack of proper safety standards, improper implementation of safety standard operating procedures, ineffective safety training, number of people attending safety trainings, medical and health conditions of its workers etc. Without the above mentioned information, it's difficult to accept the claim that one hour of less work would have a huge impact. Also, 30 % increase in the accidents is not a small number and there has to be some other major factor contributing to that. Without such evidences, the reasoning stands weak.

In conclusion, the reasoning in the argument is weak and unsupported due to lack of evidence and data. If the author would have demonstrated the claim with sufficient data and information, the argument would have been strengthened. Without this additional support, however, there is no reason to accept the conclusion in the argumen