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 suggests that reducing the on-the-job accident by shortening work by one hour gets adequate rest. However, the argument is plagued with the skewed assumption that the writer needs to address.
The author in the argument claims that Panoply Industries Plant has fewer accidents because it has fewer work hours compared to Quiot Manufacturing. Still, the assumption here is that both of them have the same background as well as the type of the industry. It is possible that the major business of Quiot Manufacturing is metal cutting and require lots of labors to work with cutting machine which is very dangerous to people, While Panoply Industries Plant responses for the micro process assembly and the operation of that machine is pretty safe. Therefore, the assumptions of the detailed background of two factories have to be presented to make the argument more cogent.
Besides, the writer mentions that experts say remarkable contributing factors in on-the-job accidents are fatigue and insufficient sleep. The assumption here is that the experts have the capabilities to analyze the root causes of the labor accident. It could be true if “experts” come from the 3rd authoritative institution and have already famous publications in the top-ranking journal regarding the labor accidents impact on the amount of sleep. However, that could be totally different story if they are just graduated from universities and don’t have much experience with the labor accident analysis. The writer has to consider the assumption mentioned above and it is suggested to use 3rd party report about to do cross-checking to make the argument convincing.
Additionally, the author implies that reducing 1 work hour could benefit productivity as well as reducing the accident rate. Nevertheless, the assumption is that every labor uses the additional hour as sleeping time properly. It is possible that lots of workers would like to drink after work and they go to the drinking store 1 hour earlier, so they would drink more than they did before and they become more tired the next day. Moreover, some of the workers play online game and they use the extra 1 hour playing more online games and not go to the bad all night. The benefit would be much less than the expectation of the author, so he or she needs to consider the assumption about how they use the leisure time after the additional 1-hour shift.
Furthermore, the writer also proposes that the past year's data about accidents comparing Quiot Manufacturing to Panoply Industrial Plant is credible and we could trust it. The assumption here is that the data is enough representative. It is possible that the accident rate of Quiot Manufacturing was actually much lower than that of Panoply industrial Plant before the past year. And the peak accident data from last year just because a new building was established and extra accidents happened during the construction. Except for the accidents from the building construction, the number of actual accidentals of Quiot Manufacturing is only as much as half of that of Panoply Industrial Plant. The assumption of the representation of the data should be addressed by the author and earlier years data is recommended to preset to strengthen the argument.
In conclusion, the readers couldn’t believe the argument unless the assumption mentioned above is explained.
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: 23 15
No. of Words: 550 350
No. of Characters: 2772 1500
No. of Different Words: 242 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.843 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.04 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.821 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 187 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 151 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 113 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 74 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.913 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.319 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.696 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.309 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.48 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.089 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 222, Rule ID: BOTH_AS_WELL_AS[1]
Message: Probable usage error. Use 'and' after 'both'.
Suggestion: and
...t both of them have the same background as well as the type of the industry. It is possibl...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nted to make the argument more cogent. Besides, the writer mentions that expert...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...cking to make the argument convincing. Additionally, the author implies that re...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 451, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...come more tired the next day. Moreover, some of the workers play online game and they use t...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ime after the additional 1-hour shift. Furthermore, the writer also proposes th...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 64, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'years'' or 'year's'?
Suggestion: years'; year's
... the writer also proposes that the past years data about accidents comparing Quiot Ma...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 800, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'years'' or 'year's'?
Suggestion: years'; year's
... be addressed by the author and earlier years data is recommended to preset to streng...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, besides, but, furthermore, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, regarding, so, still, then, therefore, well, while, as to, except for, in conclusion, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 70.0 55.5748502994 126% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2830.0 2260.96107784 125% => OK
No of words: 548.0 441.139720559 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16423357664 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83832613839 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90868356604 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 246.0 204.123752495 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.448905109489 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 871.2 705.55239521 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 16.0 8.76447105788 183% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.2214199234 57.8364921388 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.043478261 119.503703932 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8260869565 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.65217391304 5.70786347227 134% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.262621163646 0.218282227539 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0764589246355 0.0743258471296 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0864490094383 0.0701772020484 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.11836329839 0.128457276422 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0941288272716 0.0628817314937 150% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.3799401198 103% => 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: 12.94 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.0 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 98.500998004 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => 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.