The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Alta Manufacturing 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 b

In the argument, it is recommended that by reduction of work shift hours by one hour per shift will lead to workers getting ample sleep. This conclusion is based on experts believing that sleep deprivation which in turn causes fatigue is a contributing factor in many of on-job accidents. However, before this recommendation can be properly evaluated, three questions must be answered.
First of all, by reducing work hours by one hour per shift, will it necessarily mean the workers will have ample amounts of sleep? What if the workers sleep at the usual time that he always did after amendment work hours? Supposedly, if the work hours are 9am to 5pm and the work hours amended. Now, employees can leave 1 hour earlier. Though, they have more time to relax and get on with the other facets of post work hours life, it doesn’t mean that they will get ample sleep. Therefore, if above is true, the conclusion does not hold water.
Secondly, What if the workers at Panoply industries are trained better than Alta Manufacturing? The author, prematurely assumes that the workers at both industries are equally skilled and trained. However, this might not be the case. Perhaps, due lack of proper training, the workers at latter are more susceptible to injury and on job accidents as compared to former.
Lastly, What if there are more factors involved that take a toll on workers? Is the nature of work executed by workers at Alta manufacturing same as work Panoply Industries? The Author, assumes that sleep deprivation is the only factor that causes fatigues and leads to on job accidents. It is possible that the nature of work at Alta manufacturing is more hazardous and prone to Injury than at Panoply Industries – perhaps workers at latter work in more docile environment than latter. If the above scenario has merit, then conclusion drawn is significantly weakened.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stand now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to answer three questions above and offer more evidence (perhaps in form of a systematic research study), then it will be possible to fully evaluated the feasibility of the proposed recommendation of reduction of work hours.