The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of a manufacturing company.
During the past year, workers at our newly opened factory reported 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than workers at nearby Panoply Industries. Panoply produces products very similar to those produced at our factory, but its work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. Experts say that fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers are significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents. Panoply's superior safety record can therefore be attributed to its shorter work shifts, which allow its employees to get adequate amounts of rest.
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
There is a recommendation from a vice president of a manufacturing company. The arguer indicates that their working period is too long to increase the working accidents by 30%. The arguer suggests that the nearly Panoply Industries whose products are similar to theirs has lower working accidents because of its one-hour-shorter shift. Then the arguer supplies the evidence that the fatigue and sleep deprivation will influence the workers and have an association with the higher on-the-job accidents. This argument, however, is unconvincing because numerous equivocal assumptions must be made for a sound proof.
To begin with, the arguer mentions that the factory is new opened. The arguer yet did not offer the detail of the reason why these works had accidents. It could be a possibility that the increasing accidents rate is the ramifications while the employees are not familiar with these new facilities. To the beginners, it is a common phenomenon that they operate the machine without correct skills or enough care and cause the mistakes. In this case, these rose accidental rate was not the result of a lack of sleep and therefore undermine the arguer’s claim.
The arguer indicates workers in the newly opened factory had 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than those in Panoply Industries. It could be two doubts of the resources of these statistics. One is that what these on-the-job accidents are and the other is the information of Panoply Industries’ on-the-job accidental statistics. Whether the definition of on-the-job accidents, the employees’ duties, and the skill are the same. The auger assumes hastily that their on-the-job accidents are higher than those of Panoply Industries. Without a more considerable information of both companies, the assertion would be unacceptable.
The arguer took Panoply Industries as the comparison is based on the similarity of the products. The assumption, however, is untenable. The close relation of products does not mean the other parts of the companies would be similar. What about the environment, the work skills, and the employees' salaries? All of these could affect the reason of on-the-job accidents. Unless the arguer could evince there is no difference between these two companies or the accidents did not effect by any other possible factor would the claim be convincing.
Finally, the arguer illustrates that the long work shift would cause fatigue and the on-the-job accidents. The most confusing problem is that the long work shift is only longer by one hour than the short one. The arguer perhaps needs to offer a cogent evidence to show this one-hour is long enough to cause fatigue. Moreover, it cannot be sure that the employees who have the one-hour shorter shift will sleep in that one hour. It could be possible that they do their personal activities such as playing games, shopping, and eating. In any of these scenarios, if true, would undercut the claim of one-hour short shift is equal to adequate sleep.
In conclusion, the argument is not persuasive as it represents. To reinforce the argument, the vice president needs to offer the detail of these accidents and the information of the two companies. In addition, it is important to detect if the one-hour plays a major role on causing on-the-job accidents. Without the stronger proof, it is unwarranted to accept the argument.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 449, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this rose' or 'these rises', 'these roses'?
Suggestion: this rose; these rises; these roses
...e and cause the mistakes. In this case, these rose accidental rate was not the result of a...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 137, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... The assumption, however, is untenable. The close relation of products does not mea...
^^^
Line 7, column 475, Rule ID: AFFECT_EFFECT[6]
Message: Did you mean 'affect'?
Suggestion: affect
... two companies or the accidents did not effect by any other possible factor would the ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, however, if, moreover, so, then, therefore, while, in addition, in conclusion, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.6327345309 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 28.8173652695 146% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2851.0 2260.96107784 126% => OK
No of words: 544.0 441.139720559 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24080882353 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82947280553 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94569448485 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 243.0 204.123752495 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.446691176471 0.468620217663 95% => OK
syllable_count: 877.5 705.55239521 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 17.0 8.76447105788 194% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.22255489022 237% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 32.0 19.7664670659 162% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.9628538062 57.8364921388 55% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 89.09375 119.503703932 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0 23.324526521 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.4375 5.70786347227 60% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 23.0 6.88822355289 334% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.160250612817 0.218282227539 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0479727357633 0.0743258471296 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0839935354684 0.0701772020484 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0933908327986 0.128457276422 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0918531288547 0.0628817314937 146% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.3799401198 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.99 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 98.500998004 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.