During the past year, Alta Manufacturing had thirty percent more on-the-job accidents than nearby Panoply Industries, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. Experts believe that a significant contributing factor in many accidents is fatigue caused by sleep deprivation among workers. Therefore, to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents at Alta, we recommend shortening each of our three work shifts by one hour. If we do this, our employees will get adequate amounts of sleep."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The author of the argument purportedly highlights that the number of working hours in every shift at Alta Company should be reduced by one hour in order to provide an opportunity for workers to get enough sleep and diminish the number of on-the-job accident. However, the premises upon which he puts his claim are fallacious. For the support of which some critical, yet ignored question need to be addressed.
First, the author contends that during past year, Alta Manufacturing had three times more accidents than Panoply Company. However, it does not lend credence to the argument since a question that might arise is whether making a comparison with Panoply Company could decrease the number of accidents. One point that should be considered is that maybe Panoply has more skilled workers and they know what to do in order to reduce the number of accidents. Or maybe works of Alta are more risky and harder than Panoply, which increases the number of accidents spontaneously. It is also important to say that there is a possibility that Panoply Manufacturing is provided with more facilities and equipment. So, in this case, the more equipment, the more safety on-the-job.
The author also points out that experts believe that paucity of sleep is the main reason for on-the-job accidents among Alta workers. Although it might seem tenable in the face, it has some defects since you can always ask this question if lack of sleep is the only cause of on the job accidents. One of the main, if not the only, problem with the premise is that the author just takes sleep into consideration. Although it has a great impact on the performances of workers, it is not the only reason for accidents. In fact, lack of experience, no technological advancement and so forth, will also cause accidents. What if the number of accidents reduces just by raising technological advancement? What if a reduction of working hours put the future of marketing into trouble?
Finally, as set forth by the author decline working hours in every shift by one hour could provide workers with more sleep. Nevertheless, the rationale behind this premise could be challenged owing to an unsettled question if increasing the number of hours for sleep cause fewer accidents. One point that should not go unnoticed is that workers work in three shifts as the author mentioned, so, they would have enough time to take rest when they are out of shifts. What if the number of accidents does not decrease by more sleep? What if the productivity diminishes to a great extent with reduction of working hours? Alongside that, maybe Alta workers gain enough experience during their jobs in next years and this could help to the decline of on-the-job accidents.
Having scrutinized all the premises, a logical conclusion that can be drawn is that there are a number of questions, having been ignored by the author while the answer of which could add to the logic of each premise.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- better argument is:
maybe the workers don't use the extra hour for sleep.
----------------
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: 23 15
No. of Words: 499 350
No. of Characters: 2391 1500
No. of Different Words: 211 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.726 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.792 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.574 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 160 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 119 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 74 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.696 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.868 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.739 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.33 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.511 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.115 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, while, in fact, to a great extent
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 76.0 55.5748502994 137% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2447.0 2260.96107784 108% => OK
No of words: 499.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 4.90380761523 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72634191566 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67896822968 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 223.0 204.123752495 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.446893787575 0.468620217663 95% => OK
syllable_count: 758.7 705.55239521 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.8418999521 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.391304348 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6956521739 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.95652173913 5.70786347227 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.232100454091 0.218282227539 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0754800688137 0.0743258471296 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0797012110264 0.0701772020484 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12422625174 0.128457276422 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0912392086265 0.0628817314937 145% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.14 12.5979740519 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.59 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 98.500998004 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.