The author argues here that shortening working hours reduce on-the-job accidents and, therefore, increases productivity. Stated in this way, the argument reveals several instances of poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology. To justify this conclusion, the author takes the performance of a nearby factory into account and compares their on-the-job accidents ratio to his, the Quiot Manufacturing, and sees a correlation between the working hours and the emerged accidents. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides only little credible support for the author’s recommendation. Hence, the argument can be considered incomplete or unsubstantiated.
First, the argument readily assumes that both plants outcome is based on the same circumstances and, therefore, he can just adopt the differences to achieve the same results. This is merely an assumption made without much solid ground. For example, it is not stated if the factories produce the same products to be better comparable, if the cause of a higher efficiency in the Panoply Industries plant is caused by the fewer working hours or another factor or if the workers are equipped with saver clothes. There are numerous more potential reasons for a higher productivity in the other factory. Hence, the argument would have been much more convincing if it explicitly stated that after a change in working hours in the close by manufacture, the on-the-job accidents decreased or that the companies are very similar and well comparable.
Secondly, the argument claims that fewer working-hours lead to fewer accidents at work and, thus, a higher productivity. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between fewer accidents and a higher productivity, let alone the claim that accidents indeed decrease with a changed number of working hours. To illustrate, there could be many other reasons why people in the author’s factory experience on-the-job accidents on a higher frequency than the Panoply Industries plant. The machines could be more dangerous or more difficult to use, the workers could be worse educated to do the job or shorter onboarded. The worker’s competence could be significantly different to do the job or the industry of the two companies is just very different, so the work differs highly in the rate of work-accidents. Thus, without convincing answers to these questions, the reader is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful easy solution rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is, therefore, unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts or conducted a study proving the made claims. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of the contributing factors.
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
two arguments are relatively similar.
need at least 3 arguments and argue accordingly to the topic.
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 7 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 458 350
No. of Characters: 2411 1500
No. of Different Words: 231 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.626 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.264 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.003 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 185 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 152 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 105 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 79 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.105 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.736 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.579 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.316 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.316 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.085 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 47, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'plants'' or 'plant's'?
Suggestion: plants'; plant's
... the argument readily assumes that both plants outcome is based on the same circumstan...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, well, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2481.0 2260.96107784 110% => OK
No of words: 458.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.41703056769 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62611441266 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15947314463 2.78398813304 113% => OK
Unique words: 234.0 204.123752495 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.510917030568 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 782.1 705.55239521 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.0684190114 57.8364921388 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.578947368 119.503703932 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1052631579 23.324526521 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.73684210526 5.70786347227 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
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: 0.17679419647 0.218282227539 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0514522761316 0.0743258471296 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0507455531015 0.0701772020484 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0964034883614 0.128457276422 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.058980945519 0.0628817314937 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.3550499002 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 12.5979740519 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.14 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 125.0 98.500998004 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 Out of 6
---------------------
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.