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.
While it may be true that fatigue and sleep deprivation are the main reason for on-the-job accidents. However, the author's argument to shorten one hour from workers’ shifts does not make a cogent case. It is easy to understand that a vice president of Quiot manufacturing wants to reduce on-the-job accidents and increase productivity, but the arguer needs verifiable evidences to prove this recommendation.
First of all, the author mentions that if the company cut the employees' hours to one hour less, it is going to reduce on-the-job accidents which is not logical. There is no information about all workers' physical conditions which can make a different perspective. Many of workers may be able to work fulltime perfectly. In addition, some employees may lose their passion at work when they have to work less with less income which will result in less productivity.
Additionally, the author assumes that fatigue is the main reason for on-the-job accidents, but he/she does not count other possibilities which are important to consider. Imagine new employees who did not get enough training to use instruments safety, so they may end of hurting themselves accidently. Some instruments may be so old and not functioning well which can result in accidents at work environment. To strength his/her recommendation, a vice president needs to investigate about all other reasons for job accidents.
Last but not least, the arguer compares two different manufacturing and expect to get the same results which does not make sense. There may be many differences between Quiot and Panoply factories. It is possible that Panoply have more trained and professional employees compared to Quiot manufactory. Moreover, it is important to consider work environment safety differences between these two factories.
A vice president of Quiot manufacturing can make his/her suggestion persuasive when he/she gathers information about similarities and differences between Quiot and Panoply industries, all other possibilities for work accidents, and work hours monitoring. After answering these questions, a vice president can make such a conclusion.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 8 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 335 350
No. of Characters: 1767 1500
No. of Different Words: 165 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.278 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.275 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.026 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 120 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 103 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 80 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 65 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.706 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.185 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.706 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.347 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.347 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.116 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 116, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... for on-the-job accidents. However, the authors argument to shorten one hour from worke...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, moreover, so, well, while, in addition, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 55.5748502994 68% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1812.0 2260.96107784 80% => OK
No of words: 331.0 441.139720559 75% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.47432024169 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26537283232 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.14691979669 2.78398813304 113% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 204.123752495 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.504531722054 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 558.9 705.55239521 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.7684309937 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.588235294 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4705882353 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.82352941176 5.70786347227 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.204222053789 0.218282227539 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0688132852041 0.0743258471296 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0554507735314 0.0701772020484 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.128090068353 0.128457276422 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0513424349308 0.0628817314937 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.3799401198 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 12.5979740519 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.2 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 98.500998004 77% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
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.