32. The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Quiot Manufacturing.
"During the past year, Quiot Manufacturing had 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than at the nearby Panoply Industries plant, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. Experts say that significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents are fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers. Therefore, to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents at Quiot and thereby increase productivity, we should shorten each of our three work shifts by one hour so that employees will get adequate amounts of sleep."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
In the argument, the author has cited some facts and comes up to the conclusion that we should short the work shifts to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents at Quiot and thereby increase productivity. However the argument is rife with holes and unwarranted assumptions, and hence, not strong enough to buttress the preceded conclusion.
First of all, the argument is based on a questionable assumption that the shorter shifts of work is the reason why Quiot Manufactuting(QM) has lesser on-the-job accidents. Yet the author failed to provide any piece of evidence to corroborate that. Nevertheless the two things occur at the same time,it does not necessary means that the comparatively lesser accident of QM is due to the shorter work shifts. It is possible that QM has far lesser employees than Panply Industries(PI). Or, perhaps QM has changed its machine which contributes lots to the accidents. Any of these scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the claim that the with the shorter shifts of work, accidents might become fewer.
The author has further set his conclusion on the basis of the expert's claim. Since there is no evidence to substantiate the credibility of these words, it is entirely possible that the author makes it up in order to make the argument more plausible. Even if the author does not make up the words, there still needs more information about the background of the experts to justify whether the claim is credible, after all the vice president use lots of vague words,such like 'say', 'many'.
Finally, in asserting that PI should shorten each of work shifts by one hour to ensure adequate sleep of the employees, the vice president overlooks the possibility that the worker would spend the time to play with their friends or make company with their family other than sleep. Even if they do get adequate sleep, that does not necessarily means that the accidents will decrease and thereby increase productivity.
To recapitulate, it is clear that there are still some unexplored avenues in the argument due to which the conclusion seems untenable. It would be wise to address those areas prior to setting any firm conclusion on the matter.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 207, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...uiot and thereby increase productivity. However the argument is rife with holes and unw...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 247, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Nevertheless,
... piece of evidence to corroborate that. Nevertheless the two things occur at the same time,i...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 297, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , it
...ss the two things occur at the same time,it does not necessary means that the compa...
^^^
Line 5, column 463, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , such
...e vice president use lots of vague words,such like say, many. Finally, in assertin...
^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'finally', 'first', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'nevertheless', 'so', 'still', 'after all', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.230576441103 0.25644967241 90% => OK
Verbs: 0.152882205514 0.15541462614 98% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0852130325815 0.0836205057962 102% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0551378446115 0.0520304965353 106% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0300751879699 0.0272364105082 110% => OK
Prepositions: 0.12030075188 0.125424944231 96% => OK
Participles: 0.015037593985 0.0416121511921 36% => Some participles wanted.
Conjunctions: 2.75426577405 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0426065162907 0.026700313972 160% => OK
Particles: 0.00751879699248 0.001811407834 415% => OK
Determiners: 0.130325814536 0.113004496875 115% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0175438596491 0.0255425247493 69% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0100250626566 0.0127820249294 78% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2179.0 2731.13054187 80% => OK
No of words: 364.0 446.07635468 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.98626373626 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.36792674256 4.57801047555 95% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.332417582418 0.378187486979 88% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.241758241758 0.287650121315 84% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.175824175824 0.208842608468 84% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.126373626374 0.135150697306 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75426577405 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 207.018472906 92% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.524725274725 0.469332199767 112% => OK
Word variations: 56.8245185455 52.1807786196 109% => OK
How many sentences: 15.0 20.039408867 75% => OK
Sentence length: 24.2666666667 23.2022227129 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.7247761728 57.7814097925 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.266666667 141.986410481 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.2666666667 23.2022227129 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.8 0.724660767414 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 48.4424908425 51.9672348444 93% => OK
Elegance: 1.53684210526 1.8405768891 83% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.452191470204 0.441005458295 103% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.149879033777 0.135418324435 111% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0680559008725 0.0829849096947 82% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.67336256794 0.58762219726 115% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.169219960646 0.147661913831 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.225926711304 0.193483328276 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.122490292147 0.0970749176394 126% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.433080812908 0.42659136922 102% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.132464804775 0.0774707102158 171% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.318576981064 0.312017818177 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0816503107118 0.0698173142475 117% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.33743842365 60% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.87684729064 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.82512315271 41% => OK
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 14.0 14.657635468 96% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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: This is not the final score. 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.