The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of a manufacturing company. "During the past year, workers at our newly opened factory reported 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than workers at nearby Panoply Industries. Panoply

Essay topics: The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of a manufacturing company.

"During the past year, workers at our newly opened factory reported 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than workers at nearby Panoply Industries. Panoply produces products very similar to those produced at our factory, but its work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. Experts say that fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers are significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents. Panoply's superior safety record can therefore be attributed to its shorter work shifts, which allow its employees to get adequate amounts of rest."

Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.

orlando23's picture

In this passage, we are informed that Panoply has a better safety records. Referring to less on-the-job accidental rate and sleep deprivation theory from experts, the author ascribes seeming safety status of Panoply to the shorter work shifts. Quite reasonable though such explanation appears at first glance, we can not safely claim that it is the unique one that accounts for the facts presented in the argument. Therefore, we should consider more explanations, which could rival with the one proposed in the passage.

To start off, the author attributes the less on-the-job accidents rate to the higher level of security of Panoply factory. While security level of factory actually plays great role in less accidental rate, the latter could have sprung from other reasons as well. First of all, it is likely that Panoply has a relatively small total number of employees. If this is the case, a superior less accident happening could have little bearing on the real security level of factory status. Consequently, such case could be explained as stemming from less operations out of less employees than other factories. Second, while less percentage accidental rate seems objective measurement, the standards about accidents are highly subjective. Therefore, it is of equal probability that Panoply seldom constitute a stringent standard of accidents as other factories for the sake of reported better result. Once the assertion that Panoply's inferior security standards proves warranted, the underlying logic will be weakened, namely: Panoply's less accidental rate could sufficiently demonstrates its better situation of factory security.

Furthermore, the shorter work shifts of Panoply and experts' theory about sleep deprivation impact could lend great support to the author's explanation that a shorter work shift contributes to Panoply's better accidents phenomenon. However, a relatively less accidental rate could considered not only from average sleep amount from employee, but also presumably from other reasons as well. One possible reason is that Panoply has overall high qualities of employees, which eliminate the potential risks of operational flaw in factories. Moreover, an alternative explanation might be that the new imported devices and a agreeable working environment also lead to employee's better mental status, which greatly dwindle their bad temper and result in less operational remiss. Without additional investigation, we can not decide which explanation could finally lead to Panoply's better security situation in factories. It is even likely that all of these aforementioned explanations have conspired to such result.

Last but not least, while we can admit for a moment that the no other factors play prominent role as work shift length, it is still reckless to claim a the shorter work shift could actually increase employee's sleep length. Other explanations could readily compete with the one alleged in the argument. For example, employees, either in Panoply or other factories, might take such extra time for their additional leisure activities. That is to say, even if we adapt to a shorter work shift, it is still unnecessary to guarantee that employee could get sufficient sleep and ameliorate their overall sleeping status. Then, our expectation of improvement of less accidental rates based on a shorter work shift might finally fall into in vain. In this case, off-work activities reason plays a dominant for overall status of accidental rates of factories.

In summary, while average sleeping status has exerted great influence on factories' ultimate accidental rates, in the absence of sufficient information, we can not establish a causal relationship between these two factors. Furthermore, Panoply's relatively scarcity of accidents is such a case that we should consider more explanations which could account for the facts presented in the argument.

Essay Categories: 
Votes: 
Average: 6.6 (1 vote)
More essays by this user:

Pages

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 542, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun operations is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...ase could be explained as stemming from less operations out of less employees than o...
^^^^
Line 5, column 565, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun employees is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...as stemming from less operations out of less employees than other factories. Second,...
^^^^
Line 5, column 676, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...dental rate seems objective measurement, the standards about accidents are highly...
^^
Line 5, column 842, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...stringent standard of accidents as other factories for the sake of reported bette...
^^
Line 5, column 1069, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'demonstrate'
Suggestion: demonstrate
...less accidental rate could sufficiently demonstrates its better situation of factory securit...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 131, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... impact could lend great support to the authors explanation that a shorter work shift c...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 208, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'accidents'' or 'accident's'?
Suggestion: accidents'; accident's
...rk shift contributes to Panoplys better accidents phenomenon. However, a relatively less ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 279, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'consider'
Suggestion: consider
...a relatively less accidental rate could considered not only from average sleep amount from...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 615, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...ht be that the new imported devices and a agreeable working environment also lead...
^
Line 13, column 151, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'a' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: a; the
...t length, it is still reckless to claim a the shorter work shift could actually incre...
^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, consequently, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, second, so, still, then, therefore, well, while, for example, in fact, in summary, first of all, that is to say

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

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.9520958084 170% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 70.0 55.5748502994 126% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3316.0 2260.96107784 147% => OK
No of words: 599.0 441.139720559 136% => OK
Chars per words: 5.53589315526 5.12650576532 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.94716853372 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86238035769 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 274.0 204.123752495 134% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.457429048414 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 1035.0 705.55239521 147% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 4.96107784431 242% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.0560694134 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.538461538 119.503703932 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0384615385 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.61538461538 5.70786347227 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 10.0 5.25449101796 190% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.20758483034 183% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.1231176562 0.218282227539 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0431328418823 0.0743258471296 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0335082672968 0.0701772020484 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0802265521667 0.128457276422 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0379392064387 0.0628817314937 60% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.3550499002 82% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.15 12.5979740519 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.81 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 153.0 98.500998004 155% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.

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: 26 15
No. of Words: 599 350
No. of Characters: 3238 1500
No. of Different Words: 263 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.947 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.406 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.791 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 252 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 198 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 144 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 106 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.038 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.128 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.692 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.325 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.498 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.131 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5

Pages