The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Quiot Manufacturing.
"During the past year, 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 vice president of Quiot Manufacturing, in his note does a comparison of in-job incident of his factory with Panoply Industries, and according to one hour shorter working hour at Panoply industries, he assumes that possible reason for the current increment accidents in his manufacturing is for the sake of tiredness and sleep deprivation of his labors; therefore, he is planning to reduce the working hours to an hour fewer than the current schedule to prevent possible accidents and increase the efficiency. This conclusion cannot be accepted as it stands since it relies on the series of assumptions all of which are doubtful and requires more support for their verifications.
The first fallacious assumption is based on the comparison of two industries about which there is no sufficient clue to give adherence that they are identical. In fact, the type of occupations at two factories are not mentioned which provide this possibility to assume that the Panoply Industries plant possesses a low-risk type of acts in contrast of the Quiot Manufacturing which owns risk-full job for workers. In this scenario, the ratio of facing the working-peril by workers in the Panoply Industries plant is fewer than the Quiot Manufacturing. Or even with the consideration of the same type of industry for both cases, as long as there is no information about the working conditions and safety system of two factories, the generalization of implemented program, one hour shorten the working schedule, in the Panoply Industries plant to the Quiot Manufacturing is not a wise action. Because of the probability of the more safe and immune working condition at the Panoply Industries plant which prevents in-job accidents.
Another problem with the memo is the holistic sentence of experts which is referred to as a supporting clue for the reduction of the working hour. As mentioned in the memo, experts bolded the tediousness and lack of sleep as the main factors of the on-job accident; while this sentence in the first glance seems appealing it is so general to get that much-specified conclusion about the working hours of Quiot Manufacturing. Actually, there is a list of the vital parameters which can be led to an in-job calamity such as the lack of knowledge of working with machines. This factor may not own the same importance as the fatigue and sleepless, but it is not that much insufficient to be overlooked. There is the probability that during the last year the majority of the accidents had occurred at the Quiot Manufacturing is by the newly-employed labors who did not know how to work with machines and for the sake of their careless actions, those events took place. Thus, without specification of the main reason for the recent accidents in the at the Quiot Manufacturing, this holistic and vague sentence by experts cannot be a good reference.
Finally, in the case which the long working hours and fatigues are the reasons of the current accident in the Quiot Manufacturing, there is no piece of evidence that shorten working hours will cause the increment of working productivity which is assumed will happen with the reduction of the working hours in three shifts. For instance, maybe the reason of less efficiency is the amount of the working force which does not fulfill the entire requirements, in this case, by the elimination of one hour from whole shifts, this insufficiently of labors will get more severe than previous.
To wrap it up, all the aforementioned reasons explicitly depict who this memo is skeptical and requires further explanation on the identically of two industries and their working condition for comparison, the effectiveness of the experts’ sentence over the reduction of the working risk and enhancement of productivity.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK. need to argue:
During the past year, 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.
//your argument 1 is fine
argument 2 -- not OK. need to argue:
Experts say that significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents are fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers.
//maybe 30 percent more on-the-job accidents are not due to fatigue and sleep. some other reasons
argument 3 -- not OK. need to argue:
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.
//maybe people don't use one hour for sleep.
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 619 350
No. of Characters: 3099 1500
No. of Different Words: 253 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.988 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.006 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.961 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 213 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 178 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 125 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 89 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 36.412 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 17.54 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.529 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.363 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.565 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.106 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 325, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...g risk and enhancement of productivity.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, if, look, may, so, therefore, thus, while, for instance, in contrast, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 99.0 55.5748502994 178% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3157.0 2260.96107784 140% => OK
No of words: 619.0 441.139720559 140% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.10016155089 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.98795655647 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05988471173 2.78398813304 110% => OK
Unique words: 262.0 204.123752495 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.423263327948 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 986.4 705.55239521 140% => 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: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.22255489022 237% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 38.0 22.8473053892 166% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 102.078324707 57.8364921388 176% => OK
Chars per sentence: 197.3125 119.503703932 165% => OK
Words per sentence: 38.6875 23.324526521 166% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.3125 5.70786347227 128% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => 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: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.299024546538 0.218282227539 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.107543257574 0.0743258471296 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0647678351655 0.0701772020484 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.16980724848 0.128457276422 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0505158544817 0.0628817314937 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 21.9 14.3799401198 152% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.91 48.3550499002 68% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 18.1 12.197005988 148% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.89 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.19 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 144.0 98.500998004 146% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 28.0 12.3882235529 226% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 17.2 11.1389221557 154% => OK
text_standard: 28.0 11.9071856287 235% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.