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 ve

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.

The memo from the vice president describes the situation faced by newly open factories regarding on-the-job accidents. While giving the reason behind this the author describes the Panoply Industries practice of shorter work shifts and infers the reason as lack of rest for the workers. Though the considered factor can be one of the reason, alternative reasoning possibilities cannot be avoided. Thus, due to flawed arguments and lack of pieces of evidence makes the author's statement weak.
The author to prove his point compares the company with the Panoply industries by stating that both manufacture similar product. Manufacturing similar product does not allow us to assume that various prime factors that must be considered also show similar behavior. One must ask whether the instruments used by both the companies are of similar kind, quality, quantity and other factors of comparison? Also, it is possible that both use different methodologies for application, this may bring certain difference in produced item. The production is based on the available workers and there skills, thus, before taking all these factors under consideration the comparison cannot be allowed.
The author with reference to Panoply Industry, assumes that the prime factor responsible for on-the-job accidents is fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers. It can be considered as one of the factor, but alternatives must also be considered. Some of the factors responsible for the accidents can be the degraded quality of instrument usage, some of the hazardous techniques or methods used as a production process, lack of maintenance of the area of the industries or the natural factors affecting area such as disasters, bad-quality roads, and others, also, the carelessness expressed by the workers. It is possible that similar rate of accident was experienced before, so, is not of much significance. Thus, before considering all such possibilities one cannot derive such stated correlation.
The author makes an absurd prediction that reduction of the work shifts and availing more time for rest to the workers, will reduce the rate of accidents. The first thing is before deducing the actual factor of the accident making such a decision will lead to facing losses in the form of less production, less profit, workers becoming less active and lack the interest in work. It is also possible that if some other factors are responsible for the accident, the above action leads to negligence towards those factors and thus, it persists and may harm more adversely in future. Thus, any prediction must be supported with some specific pieces of evidence before it's application.
Finally, the vice president must undergo a detail study of the on-the-job accidents and find out actual factor responsible for it, instead of illogically assuming the it as lack of rest. Also, while considering the Panoply Industries scenarios, one must gather detailed report of there actions and corresponding results to understand it thoroughly.

Votes
Average: 6.8 (2 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 468, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...nd lack of pieces of evidence makes the authors statement weak. The author to prove hi...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 247, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: Some
...t alternatives must also be considered. Some of the factors responsible for the accidents c...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 346, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...e degraded quality of instrument usage, some of the hazardous techniques or methods used as...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 569, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...it persists and may harm more adversely in future. Thus, any prediction must be supported...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 164, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'it'?
Suggestion: the; it
...for it, instead of illogically assuming the it as lack of rest. Also, while considerin...
^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, if, may, regarding, so, thus, while, such as, with reference to

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

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2543.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 475.0 441.139720559 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35368421053 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66845742379 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8830193468 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 204.123752495 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.496842105263 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 810.9 705.55239521 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.6263144187 57.8364921388 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.15 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.75 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.5 5.70786347227 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.140075865239 0.218282227539 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0487012662718 0.0743258471296 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0558540175851 0.0701772020484 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0874774433223 0.128457276422 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0312123283912 0.0628817314937 50% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.3550499002 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.05 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.07 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 129.0 98.500998004 131% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.

The argument 3 is not exactly correct.
===================

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 12 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 475 350
No. of Characters: 2488 1500
No. of Different Words: 227 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.668 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.238 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.818 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 196 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 147 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 102 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 77 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.75 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.193 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.8 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.31 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.31 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.07 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5