"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 deprivation among workers are significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents. Therefore, we recommend that Butler Manufacturing shorten each of its work shifts by one hour. Shorter shifts will allow Butler to improve its safety record by ensuring that its employees are adequately rested."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
In the passage the author concludes that by reducing shift hours by an hour would improve safety record so that the employees are well rested. The author does not give substantial evidence like the details of the Butler manufacturing industries and Panoply industries, details of the study conducted by government to show sleep deprivation and fatigue were the cause of job-accidents and makes a strong conclusion.
To begin, the author presents with Butler Manufacturing Company reported 30% more job accidents than Panoply industries. The author fails to give more evidence about Butler Manufacturing the type of goods manufactured is similar in Panoply industries. If the Butler Manufacturing company manufactured something which requires more of laborious work from the employees than the Panoply industries which manufactured that did not require more tedious work. The 30%more job-accidents in Butler Manufacturing do imply that Panoply industries did not have accidents at all. The total number of employees in Butler Manufacturing and Panoply industries is not described. The environment both company provide is also not specified in the passage. The type of jobs in both the Industries employees does not well describe and therefore it not possible compare both industries job-accidents.
In the passage, the author further supports that the government studies showed that sleep deprivation and fatigue are the cause of job-accidents. The author just gives evidence that the study was funded by the government and therefore assumes that the result is true. The author does not provide any details of the study like the number of employees in the study, study location, the type of jobs, the scientists who conducted the experiments and the citations in any scientific journal. The author does not provide complete details of the government study, so cannot conclude that sleep-deprivation and fatigue are the cause of job-accidents.
The author makes a strong conclusion like decreasing the shift hours would reduce the onsite job-accidents. The evidence provided to support this statement is the government study showed that sleep deprivation and fatigue are the cause of onsite job-accidents. The author describes the shift hours, so the company works at different timings may be at night hours too. If so, the company runs at night the people who work night are the ones deprived of sleep and may have fatigue. The author does not give clear information about the shift hours and makes a strong conclusion.
The argument can be further strengthened by providing more details about the manufacturing unit of both the industries, type of jobs both the industries employees work, ensuring safety guidelines are followed by inspection, clear details of the government study and citation of the journal to show that sleep-deprivation and fatigue are the cause and details of shift hours also includes night hours. However, the argument that decreasing an hour of shift hour would increase safety is not well supported in this passage.
Sentence: The environment both company provide is also not specified in the passage.
Description: The fragment company provide is is rare
Suggestion: Possible agreement error: Replace provide with verb, present tense, 3rd person singular
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not OK
argument 4 -- OK
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 479 350
No. of Characters: 2525 1500
No. of Different Words: 159 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.678 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.271 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.953 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 180 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 144 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 99 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 76 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.95 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.102 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.392 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.596 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.157 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5