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.
A memo to the vice president of Quiot Manufacturing states that during the past year, Quiot Manufacturing had thirty percent more on-the-job accidents than the nearby Panoply Industries plant. The reason for this discrepancy, cited by the arguer is that the work shifts at Panoply Industries are an hour shorter than Quiot Manufacturing. As evidence, the arguer states that the contributing factor to on job accidents, according to experts, is fatigue and sleep deprivation and hence, the arguer suggests that Quiot Manufacturing should reduce the working time of each of its three shifts by an hour so as to reduce on job accidents and increase productivity. The suggestion presented by the arguer along with the evidences seem compelling when read for the first time. Perhaps, a thorough scrutiny unearths a few possible unstated possibilities that could undermine the arguer's suggestion.
Firstly, the arguer fails to give evidence regarding the type of work carried out at Quiot Manufacturing and Panoply Industries plant. Is the work carried out at both the locations similar? What if the work carried out at Quiot Manufacturing involves more risks than the work carried out at Panoply Industries. This could mean that the reason behind a lesser on the job accidents is because the work at Panoply Industries is safer than Quiot Manufacturing. If we assume that the work at both the locations is similar, another question arises. Is the machinery used at at both the locations same? What if Panoply Industries employees updated machines which are safer than the machines installed at Quiot Manufacturing. This could prove why the number of on-the-job accidents at Panoply Industries is less and therefore, call into question the arguer's suggestion that reducing the work shift hours at Quiot Manufacturing could reduce on-job-accidents.
Secondly, the arguer assumes that reducing work shift hours would reduce on-the-job accidents at Quiot Manufacturing. The author implies that the reduction in working hours will be used by the workers of Quiot Manufacturing to grab an extra hour of sleep. Such an assumption is baseless since the arguer cannot be sure about how the workers will utilize an extra hour of free time. What if the workers use this free time to indulge in other frivolous activities? This would mean that the reduction in work hours will not necessarily lead to a decrease in on-the-job accidents because the workers will return to work, deprived of sleep, as earlier. Such an instance would again undermine the arguer's suggestion that reduction in work hours will result in a reduction of on-the-job accidents.
Lastly, the arguer states the reduction in in-the job accidents will lead to an increase in productivity. It can be true that such a feat is achieved Quiot Manufacturing, but there is no evidence in the argument to prove such a thing would happen. What if the workers at Quiot Manufacturing are lethargic in the way they go about performing their duties? This could possibly be the reason why the number of on-the-job accidents is higher at Quiot Manufacturing and moreover, such a staff would decrease rather than increase the productivity in Quiot Manufacturing owing to the reduction in work shift hours. This again calls into question the success of arguer's suggestion.
In sum, owing to the unprecedented number of alternate possibilities and assumptions, it cannot be categorically stated if the arguer's suggestion would be a success. A deeper and an informed study by the arguer could make for a compelling argument from the arguer's side.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 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: 579 350
No. of Characters: 2960 1500
No. of Different Words: 214 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.905 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.112 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.913 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 206 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 160 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 123 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 85 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.269 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.461 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.538 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.364 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.541 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.198 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 601, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
... of each of its three shifts by an hour so as to reduce on job accidents and increase pr...
^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 872, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguers'' or 'arguer's'?
Suggestion: arguers'; arguer's
... possibilities that could undermine the arguers suggestion. Firstly, the arguer fail...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 566, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: at
... question arises. Is the machinery used at at both the locations same? What if Panopl...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 843, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguers'' or 'arguer's'?
Suggestion: arguers'; arguer's
...s and therefore, call into question the arguers suggestion that reducing the work shift...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 692, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguers'' or 'arguer's'?
Suggestion: arguers'; arguer's
...h an instance would again undermine the arguers suggestion that reduction in work hours...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 361, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'could'.
Suggestion: could
... go about performing their duties? This could possibly be the reason why the number of on-the-...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 128, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguers'' or 'arguer's'?
Suggestion: arguers'; arguer's
...t cannot be categorically stated if the arguers suggestion would be a success. A deeper...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, hence, if, lastly, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, therefore, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.9520958084 170% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 85.0 55.5748502994 153% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3014.0 2260.96107784 133% => OK
No of words: 579.0 441.139720559 131% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20552677029 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90534594407 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98837038596 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 220.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.379965457686 0.468620217663 81% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 916.2 705.55239521 130% => 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: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.6722929372 57.8364921388 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.923076923 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2692307692 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.80769230769 5.70786347227 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 16.0 6.88822355289 232% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.399134063795 0.218282227539 183% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.132500690362 0.0743258471296 178% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.142412780906 0.0701772020484 203% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.22907398311 0.128457276422 178% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.142494341074 0.0628817314937 227% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.43 8.32208582834 89% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.