"Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money."
The author of the argument claims that to make workplace safer, the salary of the employees should be increased. To support the argument, the author provides the evidence by citing the reason of extra payroll burden to employer, and this action will force the employer to make workplace safer. Although the argument certainly has some merits, the lack of evidence, weak assumption and vague language make the argument unsubstantiated and deeply flawed. Some of the flaws of the argument are as follows.
To begin with, the argument is based on the assumption that increase in wages is the sole solution to have a safer workplace. It fails to consider the various reasons of safety hazards, like unsafe workplace layout. If the workplace contains various layout fault, such as sharp projection in corner areas, the increase in salary will not reduce this problem. For instance, in Tata motor's administrative building there were several leg cut incidents reported at the entrance point because of placement of steel table at the corner of the entrance area.
Secondly, author fails to address the education level of employees on workplace safety. Increase in salary will definitely put addition pressure on employer, but it won't help the company to improve the safety level until and unless the employers are aware of the possibility of accidents and how to avoid it.
Although as written the argument is categorically unconvincing, the author could have strengthen his position, were he to provide any statistical evidence of employers that force them to implement safety measures to save employment cost. However, without these changes, the argument is implausible and the reasoning faulty.
To sum up, the author has presented an interesting but flawed argument that makes many questionable assumptions and ignores several key factors. Had the author incorporate all the factors mentioned above, the argument would have been persuasive. As it stands, however, the author's arguments is too weak to be true. Hence, I remain unconvinced.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 326 350
No. of Characters: 1675 1500
No. of Different Words: 181 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.249 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.138 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.723 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 134 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 101 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 77 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.375 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.407 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.562 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.339 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.598 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.113 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 454, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: Some
...ment unsubstantiated and deeply flawed. Some of the flaws of the argument are as follows. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 424, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun leg seems to be countable; consider using: 'several legs'.
Suggestion: several legs
...tors administrative building there were several leg cut incidents reported at the entrance ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 87, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'strengthened'.
Suggestion: strengthened
...lly unconvincing, the author could have strengthen his position, were he to provide any st...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, for instance, such as, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 13.6137724551 29% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1731.0 2260.96107784 77% => OK
No of words: 325.0 441.139720559 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.32615384615 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24591054749 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79632218306 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.572307692308 0.468620217663 122% => OK
syllable_count: 543.6 705.55239521 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
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: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.2955830231 57.8364921388 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.1875 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3125 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.25 5.70786347227 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.134722976367 0.218282227539 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0451393616193 0.0743258471296 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0477687415526 0.0701772020484 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0712800992302 0.128457276422 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0373526118869 0.0628817314937 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.63 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.1 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 98.500998004 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.