The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Quiot Manufacturing.
"During the past year, Quiot Manufacturing had 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than at the nearby Panoply Industries plant, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. Experts say that significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents are fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers. Therefore, to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents at Quiot and thereby increase productivity, we should shorten each of our three work shifts by one hour so that employees will get adequate amounts of sleep."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
In this memo, the vice president of Quito Manufacturing claims that this company’s each of our three work shifts should be shortened by one hour to cut the number of on-the-job accidents at Quito and increase productivity. To support her argument, she points out that Quito Manufacturing had 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than at the nearby Panoply Industries plant, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than Quito’s. And she cites experts’ opinion that says the causes of this case are fatigue and sleep deprivation among works. Careful scrutiny reveals that this article has several flaws
Firstly, the author hastily assumes that the condition of the two factories is exactly same. The number of accidents could not mean the frequency. For example, if in Quito Manufacturing, 10 accidents occurred per 100 people but in Panoply Manufacturing, 7 accidents occurred per 10 people, this ratio says that the Panoply has the higher amount of accidents. Until the author presents us specified data about the fraction of all people to the number of accidents, we cannot be convinced by this memo.
Secondly, based on the opinion of experts, the vice president hastily assumes that the main reason of occurring accident is fatigue and lack of sleep. However, there could be other factors which affect the occurrence of the accidents. For example, the work in Quito factory could be more dangerous than Panoply, or even the safety-education is lack to decrease the occurrence of the accidents. If this is true, this argument is still controversial.
Finally, even if we concede that the other problematic assumption is true, there is still a questionable assumption The decrease in the number of accidents is not followed by the increase in productivity. Common sense tells us that there are many factors which affect productivity such as diligence of worker, improvement of facilities, etc. If she cannot explain the reason she thinks the decreasing of accidents will increase productivity, this argument is still dubious,
To summarize, this argument is questionable as it stands. To be more persuasive, the vice president has to explain the exact cause of accidents and present us specified data about the fraction of all people to the number of accidents. To rate better, she must explain why she thinks productivity is the result of decreasing occurrence of accidents
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK. here it is about percentage. not numbers.
argument 2 -- not OK. better to say: maybe 30 percent more on-the-job accidents are not related to fatigue and sleep deprivation.
argument 3 -- not OK. need to argue more:
Therefore, to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents at Quiot and thereby increase productivity, we should shorten each of our three work shifts by one hour so that employees will get adequate amounts of sleep.
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 386 350
No. of Characters: 1951 1500
No. of Different Words: 171 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.432 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.054 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.813 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 145 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 112 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 75 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.125 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.786 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.356 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.586 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.176 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
...his argument is still controversial. Finally even if we concede that other problemat...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 225, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...n of all people to number of accidents. To rate better, she must explain why she t...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, still, for example, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1988.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 374.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.31550802139 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3976220399 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01567297767 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.48128342246 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 612.9 705.55239521 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.6472636991 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.25 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.375 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.75 5.70786347227 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.24217134861 0.218282227539 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0717883688587 0.0743258471296 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.107843714462 0.0701772020484 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12184028071 0.128457276422 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.101518212812 0.0628817314937 161% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.2 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 98.500998004 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.