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.
The author argues that shortening work shifts will reduce the number of accidents in Quiot Manufacturing and increase the amount of sleep for employees. While the measures taken may be effective, the argument is not cogent enough to support the conclusion. The author makes a number of unstated assumptions that must be examined in order to determine the validity of the argument. If the assumptions prove unwarranted, then the entire argument proves fallacious.
First, the author assumes that Panoply Industries plant had fewer accidents due to shorter work shifts. However, Panoply Industries may have had fewer on-job accidents due to its disparate work environment. Panoply Industries plant may have more safety measures on the job site compared to Quiot Manufacturing, such as using hard hats and having safety locks on dangerous machines. Perhaps Panoply Industries plant trains its employees on job-site safety, which prepares them to be more cautious while working. Therefore, the author must provide specific evidence that the reduction in hours is the only contribution to the lower number of accidents in Panoply Industries plant. If not, then the assumption proves unwarranted.
Secondly, the author assumes that a deficiency in sleep is the only contributing factor to on-the-job accidents. The author provides evidence that experts claim fatigue and sleep deprivation to be “significant factors” to job accidents. However, the significant factors don’t necessarily mean they are the “only” factors. Perhaps it is not a lack of sleep, but a lack of training or awareness of safety measures. Workers may not know how to work a machine or may take precarious decisions that put their safety at risk. Therefore, sleep deprivation may not be the only factor at Quiot Manufacturing. Unless the author can prove that workers are lacking sleep and is the reason for their accidents, then the argument is faulty.
Another assumption is that shortening the shifts of workers will increase productivity and amount of sleep in workers. While shortening work shifts may have a positive effect on workers, it does not necessarily mean that workers will be more productive and have more sleep. Sleep is not the only contribution to productivity. What the workers eat and how motivated they are in their jobs are also contributing factors to productivity. Additionally, a reduction in work shifts does not imply increased sleep. How can the author determine that sleep is increased? Do workers automatically go home and think to sleep early? Or in other words, do workers sleep late regardless of shift hours? The author must provide valid evidence that workers use the extra hour for sleep. If not, then the assumption is invalid.
For the aforementioned reasons, the author must consider the confounding factors. The unstated assumptions justify the argument if the author provides lucidating evidence. If not, then the assumptions are not justified and the argument takes a downfall.
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: 30 15
No. of Words: 474 350
No. of Characters: 2455 1500
No. of Different Words: 187 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.666 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.179 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.826 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 183 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 141 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 102 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 70 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.8 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.665 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.304 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.484 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.121 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, while, such as, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 55.5748502994 76% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2529.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 473.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.3467230444 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66353547975 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95557682816 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.424947145877 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 778.5 705.55239521 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 19.7664670659 152% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.5580992276 57.8364921388 60% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 84.3 119.503703932 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.7666666667 23.324526521 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.5 5.70786347227 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.150711577309 0.218282227539 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0432484979344 0.0743258471296 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0565543779972 0.0701772020484 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0851885786936 0.128457276422 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0798522042552 0.0628817314937 127% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 48.3550499002 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.45 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.09 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 98.500998004 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.