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

Essay topics:

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 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.

In this passage, the author recommends shortening each of three work shifts in Alta Manufacturing, because it could expect to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents. To support his/her claim, the author cites with comparison with Panoply Industries and comments from experts about cause of factory accidents. Quite reasonable though such recommendation appears at first glance, there exists several questions regarding his/her claim that requires further analysis. Thus, the author's conclusion could end up being pretty compelling or invalid in the end, depending on the answers to the questions.

To start off, the author's reasoning heavily relies on whether both of two factories have the same working environments, a question that is not yet answered. It is likely that Alta Manufacturing has much complex working environment, which lead to higher accidents compared with those of Panoply Industries. Without additional information to evaluate such working environment related with two companies, it is of equal probability that Panoply Industries' low accidental rate spring from its related simple working circumstance. Such phenomenon could seriously challenge that length of work shift is the critical option for accidents and render his/her claim much less advisable. On the contrary, any valid proof that both of factories have similar working necessity could strengthen his/her viewpoint.

Granted that the similiarity of two factories' working environment and given the fact that shift difference and experts' suggestion, whether less shift could contribute to amelioration of accident number needs a second look. Behind the author's reasoning lie two critical implications. The first one is that experts' idea is accurate in regards to cause of accidents in Alta. The probability that the mounting accidents is not caused by fatigue of worker, rather than other misconduct in working process in Alta's case must be considered and addressed. Yet, if the author could unequivocally demonstrate that fatigue is ubiquitous among workes in Alta and greatly induce accidents among employees, his/her viewpoint will gain more weights.

Furthermore, the second implication is that such fatigue could be improved by shorter work shift. While we might feel intuitively right that shorter shift could let workers have more time for rest, the probability that they use such time not for further recovery could not be excluded in advance. For example, they might drink beer together after work, when having such additional time. Thus, we have no clues whether fatigue status of workers could be improved, once shorter work shift is applied. If no, it is unlikely to argue that fatigue status could be improved, which could lead to decline of accidents on the job. Otherwise, a better healthy status in Alta could be expected from such change, creating favorable situation for less accidents.

In summary, while both of two factories might have equivalent working environments, this is a conclusion that we cannot derive from the information available in the argument. Furthermore, even if they possess tantamount working circumstances, whether shorter work shift could improve accidental rate of Alta is still built upon implications, which are open to different probabilities. Only after the aforementioned questions are adequately addressed can we effectively evaluate such recommendation and reach a logically sound conclusion.

Average: 6.7 (2 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:


Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 99, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
...three work shifts in Alta Manufacturing, because it could expect to reduce the nu...
Line 1, column 480, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's requires further analysis. Thus, the authors conclusion could end up being pretty co...
Line 5, column 306, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'experts'' or 'expert's'?
Suggestion: experts'; expert's implications. The first one is that experts idea is accurate in regards to cause of...
Line 5, column 331, Rule ID: IN_REGARD_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'regarding' or 'with regard to'.
Suggestion: regarding; with regard to one is that experts idea is accurate in regards to cause of accidents in Alta. The probabi...
Line 7, column 735, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun accidents is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...hange, creating favorable situation for less accidents. In summary, while both of...

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, if, look, regarding, second, so, still, then, thus, while, for example, in summary, on the contrary

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

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 28.8173652695 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2918.0 2260.96107784 129% => OK
No of words: 521.0 441.139720559 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.60076775432 5.12650576532 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77759609229 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93424185039 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 267.0 204.123752495 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.512476007678 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 888.3 705.55239521 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.3497901518 57.8364921388 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.869565217 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.652173913 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.39130434783 5.70786347227 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
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: 0.20016960864 0.218282227539 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0653993661056 0.0743258471296 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0478969474479 0.0701772020484 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121291366072 0.128457276422 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0407319987647 0.0628817314937 65% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.3550499002 84% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.5 12.5979740519 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.79 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 134.0 98.500998004 136% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 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: 526 350
No. of Characters: 2848 1500
No. of Different Words: 260 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.789 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.414 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.844 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 215 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 178 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 119 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 92 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.87 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.117 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.565 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.317 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.525 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.169 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5