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."
Thu author of this argument claims that reducing the working hour can cause the number of on-the-job accidents at Quiot lower and thereby increase productivity. However, this argument rests on many skewed assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.
To begin with the author mentioned that on hour work shifts difference between Panoply industries and Quiot Manufacturing, has significant influence to accidents which happened on the job. Nevertheless, the author didn’t provide a sufficient data about the origin working hours. For example, if the working hour of Panoply industries plant is only 6 hours, as indicate in the author assumption, the working hours of Quiot Manufacturing is 7 hours, which I believed that there are 17 hours left for the worker to take a rest. Thus, it’s hard for reader to believe that an hour difference between two factories can cause this gigantic difference on accidents rate.
But it’s also worth considering that, the accident rate is related to the work shifts hour. Since, I do mention previously, that the difference between the working hour is so mighty to cause the huge difference on accident rate. I believed that there must be other indexes or reasons that will be proportion to the accident rate. As a result, the author should do further investigation and provide enough data for reader to believe the assumption.
Last, but not least, the author proposed that fatigue and sleep deprivation will lower the productivity. Therefore, the Quiot Manufacturing should shrink the work shifts by one hour, in order to increase the productivity. Hence, the author failed to consider that if the work shifts really be shorten by one hour, which means the workers will work less, result in lowering the productivity. But, if Quiot Manufacturing decided not to shorten the working hours, even though the accident might happen, the worker being influence by the accident must only be a small percentage among all workers, which means that the effect on the productivity must be smaller than shorten a working hour of all workers.
To sum up, the arguer fails to substantiate his claim that reduce the number of working hours can fix the circumstance that the Quiot Manufacturing has facing.
Because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make it more convincing, he would have to demonstrate that the relationship mentioned above. As a result, if the argument had included the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.
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: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 421 350
No. of Characters: 2102 1500
No. of Different Words: 194 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.53 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.993 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.76 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 149 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 110 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 73 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.389 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.04 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.778 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.328 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.576 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.117 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 80, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'shifts'' or 'shift's'?
Suggestion: shifts'; shift's
...he accident rate is related to the work shifts hour. Since, I do mention previously, t...
^^^^^^
Line 11, column 161, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Because” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...hat the Quiot Manufacturing has facing. Because the evidence cited in the analysis does...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, however, if, nevertheless, really, so, therefore, thus, for example, as a result, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2179.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 420.0 441.139720559 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1880952381 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52701905584 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84177912878 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.483333333333 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 655.2 705.55239521 93% => 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: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.5179147825 57.8364921388 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.055555556 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.3333333333 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.88888888889 5.70786347227 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => 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: 0.256905844926 0.218282227539 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0830537338347 0.0743258471296 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0759257572594 0.0701772020484 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.127233442517 0.128457276422 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0585409685475 0.0628817314937 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.3799401198 102% => 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: 13.12 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.9 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 98.500998004 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => 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.