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 the memo, it is conclude that to reduce the on-the-job accidents at Quiot Manufacturing industry and thereby increase productivity, they should shorten the each of the three works shift by one hour so that the employees will get enough time for sleeping. However, the conclusion is based on three unwarranted assumptions, if refuted, will dramatically undermine the persuasiveness of the conclusion.
Firstly, the author assumes that only adequate sleep can reduce the on-the-job accidents in Quot. However, this may not be the case. It is possible that in the company there is lack of safety for the workers. The worker may not follow safety rules and regulations in Quot properly, and the authority are reluctant about the safety for the workers. Perhaps, there is no adequate amount of personal protection equipment for the workers. This lack of safety measurements in Quot may be cause for the accidents. If the case is true, then the conclusion will not hold the water.
Secondly, the author presumes that the employee of the Quot have not the enough time for sleeping and the number of shifts are equal to the Panoply industry plant, but this may not be the true case. It is possible that the employees in Quot have already enough time for sleeping; they have the time for sleeping at least six hours, which is enough for an adult. It also possible that the number of shift in Panoply is two, so the employees of Panoply may not had the enough time for sleeping. Therefore, the reduction of hour in shift in Panoply is effective. However, as Panoply reduction of hour in sleep will not be effective for the case of Quot in this case, and thus, the conclusion is seriously undermine.
Finally, the author claims that the size of industry is same for the both of the industry. However, this may not be necessarily true. It is possible that the size of Quot is larger than the Panoply, there are more employee than the Panoply, and so the number of the accidents in Quot is more than the Panoply. Moreover, the ratio of accidents to the total number of employees in Panoply may be greater than the Quot. Therefore, in this case the 30 percent more accident in Quot than the Panoply is not able to show the exact scenario; thus, the argument seems erroneous for the baseless assumption of the author.
In conclusion, reduction of hour in shift to give more time for sleeping for the worker may be effective; however, now, as it stand, the argument is specious and untenable as it relies on the mentioned unwarranted assumptions. Therefore, the author should provide necessary information to make the argument unassailable and reasonable.
Comments
e-rater score report
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: 21 15
No. of Words: 454 350
No. of Characters: 2131 1500
No. of Different Words: 159 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.616 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.694 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.581 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 143 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 113 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 83 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.619 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.522 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.905 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.342 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.548 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.117 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 20, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'concluded'.
Suggestion: concluded
In the memo, it is conclude that to reduce the on-the-job accidents...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 481, Rule ID: BE_CAUSE[1]
Message: Did you mean 'because'?
Suggestion: because
...lack of safety measurements in Quot may be cause for the accidents. If the case is true,...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 703, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'undermined'.
Suggestion: undermined
..., and thus, the conclusion is seriously undermine. Finally, the author claims that the...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 215, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'employees'?
Suggestion: employees
...larger than the Panoply, there are more employee than the Panoply, and so the number of ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, at least, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2201.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 454.0 441.139720559 103% => OK
Chars per words: 4.84801762115 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61598047577 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70058155879 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 204.123752495 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.376651982379 0.468620217663 80% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 689.4 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.6596165029 57.8364921388 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.80952381 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.619047619 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.28571428571 5.70786347227 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => 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: 0.163148899533 0.218282227539 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0526008111555 0.0743258471296 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0636208546162 0.0701772020484 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.101371028443 0.128457276422 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0666979714407 0.0628817314937 106% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.85 12.5979740519 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.5 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 98.500998004 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.