"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 s

Essay topics:

"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."

In this argument, the author urged to consider that there are a 30 percent more chances of an accident to occur by the workers in butler company in comparison to Panoply Industries. To support this recommendation, the author cited that this is happening due to the workers are not rested enough before getting to work again. I find this argument unconvincing and not cogent for some reasons.
First, the author states that sleep deprivation is the cause of more occurrence of accidents by workers. This claim cannot be accepted as it stands. A normal human being needs sleep of 8-9 hours and the most the shift of blue and white-collar jobs are for 8 hours per day, which accounts for a total of 16 -17 hours. They still have 8-9 hours left in a day which are more than enough for any employee to be well rested before getting back to work. In this argument, the author never discussed the shift timings of the workers in both companies. Hence the speculation about improper sleep for the employees does not make much sense. It deficit between what is states and what is there to evidence for and is too large to be overlooked, which ultimately cause a week argument that will count against authors conclusion.
Second, the author hypothesized that by reducing the shift timings of the workers by one hour there will be a 30 percent decrease in the job accidents in Butlet Company. This assumption is unwarranted as the correlation does not prove the causation. It is equally possible to assume that the real cause of accidents might be the error in machining or the manufacturing dyes are out of shape by its prolonged use. Perhaps the pressure of producing more products within the specified time is more than it is in Panoply industries. The author did not mention the cause of accidents in the argument. Therefore, this assumption is unwarranted and the authors' argument lacks compelling and affluent reasons to convince the proposal that reducing shift timings by 1 hour can save more accidents.
However, in accordance to the government statistics, it seems imperative to think that the lesser work shift means a more relaxed working environment for the employees. But, it is not clear where this data is for white-collar desk-jobs or for the blue-collar industrial labor as both domains have a different working environment. Hence the author is flawed and failed to substantiate his conclusion with the strong evidence and is termed with poor reasoning. The careful perusing of the evidence provided in the argument reveals that too many questions have been left unanswered without which the readers cannot consider it to be consequential.
In conclusion, this is a vague and ambiguous argument. To bolster this argument the author, must as very least, should offer the strong evidence, perhaps by the help of a survey participating the labors and the engineers of the Butler manufacturing, to find the real cause for the accidents.

Votes
Average: 4.6 (3 votes)
Essay Categories
GMAT/GRE Argument Task

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 545, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...mings of the workers in both companies. Hence the speculation about improper sleep fo...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 646, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... this assumption is unwarranted and the authors argument lacks compelling and affluent ...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 331, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...s have a different working environment. Hence the author is flawed and failed to subs...
^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, however, if, look, second, so, still, therefore, well, in conclusion

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2447.0 2260.96107784 108% => OK
No of words: 497.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 4.92354124748 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72159896747 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80476113414 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 235.0 204.123752495 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.472837022133 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 748.8 705.55239521 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.405453613 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.227272727 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5909090909 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.95454545455 5.70786347227 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => 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: 0.17305946718 0.218282227539 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0553768152696 0.0743258471296 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0622104911019 0.0701772020484 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.101089027372 0.128457276422 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0584875637265 0.0628817314937 93% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.41 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 98.500998004 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.

argument 1 -- not exactly

argument 2 -- OK

argument 3 -- not OK
----------------
argument 1:
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.

we may argue like:
maybe other reasons caused 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than workers at nearby Panoply Industries, not 'the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours'

argument 2:
A recent government study reports that fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers are significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents.

we may argue like:
maybe '30 percent more on-the-job accidents' is not because of 'fatigue and sleep deprivation'.

argument 3:
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.

we may argue like:
maybe workers will not use this one hour for sleep.

---------------------

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 497 350
No. of Characters: 2400 1500
No. of Different Words: 229 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.722 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.829 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.71 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 165 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 129 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 90 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 59 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.591 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.943 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.409 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.29 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.29 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.031 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5

In the first counter-argument, I demonstrated that sleeping or getting enough rest is not at all a problem for the workers as they have more than sufficient time to sleep before coming back to work. Then how is it not a good counter argument? Please explain.

In the third counter-argument, I simply argued that Govt. report does not specify what kinda job they are talking about as blue-collar jobs is much laborious than a desk job. Now if we talking about the labor work it makes sense to reduce 1hr from their shift timing as it is tedious and exonerating.

Please explain where I'm going wrong with my counter-argument?

Need to argue according to the prompts. We don't argue something else not in the passage. for example in the third argument:

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.

we only need to argue like:
employees may not use this extra one hour for sleep.