Clearly, the successful use of robots on mission to explore outer space could be increasingly used to perform factory work more effectively, efficiently and profitably. The use of robots in factory would offer several advantages. Firstly, robots never get sick, so absenteeism would be reduced. Second, robots do not make mistakes, so factories would increase their output. Finally, the use of robots would also improve the moral of factory workers since factory work could be so boring that many workers would be glad to more interesting kinds of tasks.
The author of the argument insists on replacing manual labor with robots to carry out factory work based upon the successful use of robots in exploring outer space and enlists down the advantages of doing so. However, the argument seems flawed and the author is unwarranted in his claim as it does not imply assumptions and their impending consequences.
Firstly, the author assumes that the tasks and purposes carried out in outer space and in factory are nearly similar. This is what we call the analogy pattern and in the context is complete fallacy. The focus of outer space is to gather evidence of alien life or to analyze certain elements for scientific research whereas the purpose of factory work is to assemble units or commodities at one place to combine a finished product which provide utility to customers at reasonable profit and generate economic activity. Whereas outer space focus on intangible returns, factory work focuses on tangible returns. Also, the cost to go to outer space could be gargantuan, extremely risky and doesn’t guarantee success. The outer space involves developing space station, establishing control units, launching area and thorough analysis of weather, geographical patterns and team of intellectual scholars to monitor journey. Likewise, factory work involves assembly lines, gathering of components from suppliers, automated programs to monitor the tasks, manual labor, supply chain and outlets.
Secondly, the claim of the author that use of robots have been successful could be misleading. It does not indicate how many overall endeavors were made and its success ratio. There is a huge probability that in twenty years, nearly three, five, eight or more attempts were made and hardly one or two might have been successful. Based on this, one cannot conclude that use of robots will necessarily be successful in factory jobs.
Thirdly, the author is wrong in its claim when he postulates that robots are more efficient. Nothing can ever have one hundred percent efficiency, neither humans nor robots. Even robots need to be recharged. The author seems ignorant of the risk factor involving in case of mishap or malfunction which could lead to a complete catastrophe. There could be damage to infrastructure, surrounding milieu and production may come to stalemate leading to dwindling sales. Likewise, the claim that robots are more effective is misleading. As human beings, we can make on the spot decisions whereas the robots can only do what they are programmed to do. If the tasks involve humane rationality, the substantial investment in robots could be rendered fruitless.
Fourthly, the author assumes that replacing human labor with robots will incite factory workers for a more satisfying and lucrative job in place of carrying out the same tedious job. There are millions of factory workers in any country and for them that is the only source of livelihood. If innumerable people are replaced with robots, it might lead to spike in unemployment numbers and in some cases, there might be revolt or uprising by residents.
By the virtue of above stated assumptions and their underlying consequences, one can reasonably conclude that the author is unwarranted in its claims.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 521 350
No. of Characters: 2650 1500
No. of Different Words: 270 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.778 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.086 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.658 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 200 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 155 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 100 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 64 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.84 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.142 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.56 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.281 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.514 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.09 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, however, if, likewise, may, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, whereas, in fact, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 25.0 11.1786427146 224% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 55.5748502994 122% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2727.0 2260.96107784 121% => OK
No of words: 520.0 441.139720559 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24423076923 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77530192783 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76661134126 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 273.0 204.123752495 134% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.525 0.468620217663 112% => OK
syllable_count: 864.9 705.55239521 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.0639500911 57.8364921388 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.08 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.76 5.70786347227 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.320459102854 0.218282227539 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0902881247427 0.0743258471296 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0870814212811 0.0701772020484 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.150257177119 0.128457276422 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0821352088389 0.0628817314937 131% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.3799401198 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.58 8.32208582834 115% => OK
difficult_words: 163.0 98.500998004 165% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.