In this argument, the vice president of Quiot Manufacturing recommended that the working hours of its workers needs to be shorten in order to prevent on-the-job accidents. He also presented some evidences to reinforce his words which might look cogent at first but is baseless when analyzed carefully.
First of all, on the basis of the analogous data, the vice president drew out the accident rate of Quiot in comparison with Panoply Industries plant. While examining this data, the author considered only the hours of the work shift and derived a rigid conclusion. The author required to considered all the factors that will led to on-the-job-accidents such as malfunctioning of machineries, lack of team coordination, workers carelessness, workload and working hours. With the consideration of all these factors can help to demonstrate the statement a more persuasive manner.
Moreover, the kind of work carried out on these two disparate plants is also missing in the argument which can also prove to be one of the vital parameter while deciding the brighter side of the argument. For example, Quiot Manufacturing might be dealing with on-sight job which requires more laborious effort while Panoply plant may be having desk work which does not required the workers to get engaged in more life threatening events as that of Quiot's workers. Therefore, this might be the reason that Panoply has less number of on-the-job accidents listed than Quiot. As this information is lacking in the argument, the author failed to prove his allegation to support the evidence.
Finally, the author stated that the reason for the accidents can be exhaustion and sleep deprivation and thus reducing the work hours can help the workers to get a proper sleep which can boast their productivity that ultimately resulting in the declination in the rate of accidents. However, even if we assume that tiredness and less sleep is the cause for the accidents, it can have multiple facets. For example, the workers may be get exhausted due less stamina, individual capacity and so on. Similarly, sleep deprivation can be cause due to late night hang outs, early shifts and so on. Thus, a background study is needed to assert this reason.
With all these uncertainties, the author is unsuccessful in proving his assertion. The absence of efficient analysis while comparing the analogous locations, reason for accidents and so on, results in proving the argument less cogent.