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 argument that shortening the work shift by one hour will reduce the number of on-job-accident is flawed because it is based on unwarranted assumption and vague evidences.
First, the author cites 30 percent more accident at Quiot manufacturing as compared to nearby Panoply plant as evidence to support his argument. However, the percent belies the true number of accidents happening. In case where the number of on-job accident happening at the Panoply industry is low, say 4 or 5, the 30 percent more accident in Quiot manufacutring does not reflect a significant change in number of accidents occuring at Quiot Manufatcutring. Consequently, more number of accident happening at Quiot Manufacturin can not be imputed to the lack of sleep or fatigue as stated by the author and the author's argument falls apart.
Second, It is being assumed by the author that the only cause of accident is lack of sleep and fatigue. There could be many other factors responsible for increase in the number of accidents. For instance, it might be that QUiot manufacturing has more faulty equipment than panoplay plant and as a result has more on-job accident. Since the author provides to fail the concrete evidence of causes of more on-job accident, the argument fails.
Third, the author assumes that the nature of work at the Quiot Manufacturing and Panoply Plant is identical. However, provides no evidence in support of the same. It might be that worker at Panoply Plant spend most of their time seating in front of computer and the process of whatever product they manufactue is automated. Conversely, it might be that workers in Quiot Manufacturing deal with wieldy and ponderous thing and thus, are more succesptible to the on-job accident. Since author fails to provide any evidence to prove that nature of work at quiot manufacturing and panoply plant is identical, reducing the shift hours will not reduce the number of on-job accident.
Finally, the author assumes when working shift is reduced,worker will necessarily use it to take more sleep. It could be that they may use this extra time to do other chores instead of sleeping. And the number of on-job accident remains same if reduced sleep is actually one of the causes.
In Conclusion, reducing the work hours will not reduce the number of on-job accident because the argument is based on the flawed assumption and thus, falls apart.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: In case where the number of on-job accident happening at the Panoply industry is low, say 4 or 5, the 30 percent more accident in Quiot manufacutring does not reflect a significant change in number of accidents occuring at Quiot Manufatcutring.
Error: on-job Suggestion: enjoy
Error: occuring Suggestion: No alternate word
Error: manufacutring Suggestion: manufacturing
Sentence: For instance, it might be that QUiot manufacturing has more faulty equipment than panoplay plant and as a result has more on-job accident.
Error: panoplay Suggestion: pan play
Error: on-job Suggestion: enjoy
Sentence: Since the author provides to fail the concrete evidence of causes of more on-job accident, the argument fails.
Error: on-job Suggestion: enjoy
Sentence: It might be that worker at Panoply Plant spend most of their time seating in front of computer and the process of whatever product they manufactue is automated.
Error: manufactue Suggestion: manufacture
Sentence: Conversely, it might be that workers in Quiot Manufacturing deal with wieldy and ponderous thing and thus, are more succesptible to the on-job accident.
Error: succesptible Suggestion: susceptible
Error: on-job Suggestion: enjoy
Error: wieldy Suggestion: No alternate word
----------------
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- somehow duplicated to argument 2
argument 4 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 12 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 399 350
No. of Characters: 1954 1500
No. of Different Words: 170 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.469 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.897 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.664 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 145 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 102 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 33 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.167 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.974 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.38 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.61 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.109 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 302, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ning at the Panoply industry is low, say 4 or 5, the 30 percent more accident in ...
^^
Line 2, column 612, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...fatigue as stated by the author and the authors argument falls apart. Second, It is be...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 58, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , worker
...or assumes when working shift is reduced,worker will necessarily use it to take more sl...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, consequently, conversely, finally, first, however, if, may, second, third, thus, for instance, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1998.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 398.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.02010050251 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46653527281 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78365200172 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 204.123752495 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.43216080402 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 632.7 705.55239521 90% => 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: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.5124713506 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.0 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1111111111 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.27777777778 5.70786347227 128% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.320014700093 0.218282227539 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.112319654812 0.0743258471296 151% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0892125419764 0.0701772020484 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.163481406911 0.128457276422 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0756756291341 0.0628817314937 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
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: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.06 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 98.500998004 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => 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.