In the memo from the vice president, it is stated that the company should shorten each of their three work shifts by one hour so that employees can get adequate amounts of sleep which would result in reduction of the number of on-the-job accidents at Quiot Manufacturing. The vice president has come to this conclusion based on experts’ opinion that fatigue and sleep deprivation are significant contributing factors in on-the-job accidents. Also, Quiot had 30% more accidents than the nearby Panoply Industrial Plant, where the work shifts are one hour shorter. Here, the following assumptions need to be examined.
Firstly, it is assumed that the work force size of both, Quiot Manufacturing and Panoply Industrial plant, is comparable. It is possible that the number of employees at Quiot Manufacturing greatly exceeds that of Panoply. Consequently, even having 30% more on-the-job accidents than Panoply could indicate better safety standards on part of Quiot. For instance, Quiot might have 1000 employees and Panoply could have 300 employees. If Panoply suffered 10 on-the-job accidents and Quiot suffered 30% more, that is, 13 on-the-job accidents, in terms of percentages, the safety performance of Quiot was far better than Panoply’s. If this scenario has merit, it significantly weakens the evidence based on which the conclusion of the argument is formed.
Secondly, it is assumed that both Quiot and Panoply have similar industry risk standards. It might be that Quiot belongs to a high-risk industry which is more prone to on-the-job accidents and Panoply belongs to an industry where the chances of on-the-job accidents are relatively lower. For instance, Quiot might belong to construction equipment manufacturing sector, where it is quite possible for workers to get injured due to the inherent safety risk present in heavy duty machinery manufacturing, whereas Panoply manufactured notebooks, where the risk for on-the-job accidents is pretty low. If the above is true, the argument again gets significantly weaker.
Lastly, it is assumed that the employees of Quiot Manufacturing will use that extra hour for sleeping. It is possible that they instead use this time for other purposes such as running errands, entertainment, etc. In this case, the extra hour given to them won’t reduce the on-the-job accident risk as per the argument. For example, the employee might use that extra 1 hour to go for shopping, or he might spend it walking in the park. If this is true, the argument doesn’t hold water.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the vice president is able to clarify all the above assumptions and offer more evidence in support of his claim by providing additional information on both the companies and the employees’ intentions on how they plan to utilize that extra hour, then it might be possible to accept his argument.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 475 350
No. of Characters: 2413 1500
No. of Different Words: 216 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.668 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.08 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.833 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 166 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 142 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 70 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.906 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.789 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.352 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.515 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.118 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, firstly, if, lastly, second, secondly, so, then, whereas, for example, for instance, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 13.6137724551 154% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2494.0 2260.96107784 110% => OK
No of words: 473.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27272727273 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66353547975 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94918350701 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 227.0 204.123752495 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.479915433404 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 751.5 705.55239521 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 73.0704937177 57.8364921388 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.761904762 119.503703932 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5238095238 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.61904761905 5.70786347227 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.407616545874 0.218282227539 187% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.121946965742 0.0743258471296 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.130717430771 0.0701772020484 186% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.221272317489 0.128457276422 172% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.144077150451 0.0628817314937 229% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.3799401198 102% => 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: 13.58 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.1 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.