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 proposed explanation less number of job accidents at the Panoply industry is that because the work shifts are shorter, the workers are getting less tired and therefore are less liable of facing on-the-job accidents. While this explanation can be a valid explanation for what is observed, it is certainly not the only explanation. Since the explanation makes certain assumptions such as pointing out length of work shifts as the only difference between the industries, the explanation is fallible. And, many other explanations can account for the observed difference in the job related accidents in the two industries.
Firstly, while the products of the two industries may be similar, the way of manufacturing them can be different. The Panoply industry might use machines that are worker friendly and decrease the chances of accidents whereas the manufacturing company might utilize heavy machineries that can injure the workers. Further, the working conditions inside the factories might be different. For instance, if the manager in the manufacturing company pushes the workers to their limits by not giving them any time to rest, the workers will certainly be more injury prone. Hence, the working conditions such as the treatment to the workers and the types of machines used can be more responsible for determining the frequency of work related injuries.
In addition to it, the selection criteria for employees or workers can significantly affect the frequency of workplace injuries. If panoply hired skilled and strong workers, they would be mentally and physically be adept at handling the equipment in the industry. On the other hand, if the new company hired fledgling workers who are liable of making mistakes, they would also be more liable of being injured in the work place. Thus, Panoply hiring skilled workers can account for the less number of injuries in Panoply.
Moreover, it is also possible that Panoply is not reporting the actual number of injuries. This is certainly probable in situations where there are government regulations requiring industries to minimize work related injuries. For instance, if the industries in the city had to pay penalties for certain number of injuries in the workplace, Panoply may choose to hide the real number of injuries by producing counterfeit reports or by persuading its workers not to report the injuries. In such a case, the report of the Panoply industry would not reflect its true number of injuries. Therefore, while at the surface the difference in number of accidents might seem large, in reality there might not be a significant difference.
As we have seen, there are more than one explanation that are equally plausible and can explain the reason why there is a difference between the number of workplace injuries in the two factories. Therefore, reaching to a conclusion without considering other possible explanation is certainly not ideal.
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'first', 'firstly', 'hence', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'so', 'therefore', 'thus', 'whereas', 'while', 'for instance', 'in addition', 'such as', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.248532289628 0.25644967241 97% => OK
Verbs: 0.146771037182 0.15541462614 94% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0880626223092 0.0836205057962 105% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0587084148728 0.0520304965353 113% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0215264187867 0.0272364105082 79% => OK
Prepositions: 0.135029354207 0.125424944231 108% => OK
Participles: 0.0508806262231 0.0416121511921 122% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.88640969835 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0176125244618 0.026700313972 66% => OK
Particles: 0.00195694716243 0.001811407834 108% => OK
Determiners: 0.115459882583 0.113004496875 102% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0371819960861 0.0255425247493 146% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.013698630137 0.0127820249294 107% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2927.0 2731.13054187 107% => OK
No of words: 468.0 446.07635468 105% => OK
Chars per words: 6.25427350427 6.12365571057 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65116196802 4.57801047555 102% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.416666666667 0.378187486979 110% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.339743589744 0.287650121315 118% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.24358974359 0.208842608468 117% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.17735042735 0.135150697306 131% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88640969835 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 207.018472906 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.435897435897 0.469332199767 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 48.5368220211 52.1807786196 93% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.039408867 100% => OK
Sentence length: 23.4 23.2022227129 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.0902325329 57.7814097925 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 146.35 141.986410481 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4 23.2022227129 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.8 0.724660767414 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 57.3743589744 51.9672348444 110% => OK
Elegance: 1.91379310345 1.8405768891 104% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.397025083112 0.441005458295 90% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.176978483246 0.135418324435 131% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0769455624323 0.0829849096947 93% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.631062796634 0.58762219726 107% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.12492400457 0.147661913831 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.187703911127 0.193483328276 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0812237888342 0.0970749176394 84% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.516545926638 0.42659136922 121% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0663147392282 0.0774707102158 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.283420059556 0.312017818177 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0804203901744 0.0698173142475 115% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.33743842365 132% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.87684729064 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 10.0 6.46551724138 155% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 5.36822660099 112% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 18.0 14.657635468 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.