The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of Butler Manufacturing.
"During the past year, workers at Butler Manufacturing reported 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than workers at nearby Panoply Industries, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. A recent government study reports that fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers are significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents. If we shorten each of our work shifts by one hour, we can improve Butler Manufacturing's safety record by ensuring that our employees are adequately rested."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The vice president of Butler Manufacturing advises shortening the working hours in all shifts by one hour until the labors are well-rested and the number of increased on-job-incident in the past year of the factory gets decline. This advice cannot be accepted as it stands since relies on the series of surmises all of which are missing the substantial reasons to get the verification. The following paragraphs will adduce these missing pieces of evidence and the possible problems with these inadequate clues.
First of all, the vice-president makes a comparison of his company with a nearby Panoply Industries which has 30 percent fewer injury report; on the other hand, there is no clue about these two companies. Indeed, a valid and logic comparison is the one which is done between two substances possessing identical features; otherwise, the action will be the comparison of apples and oranges and a dead-ended contribution. The lacking evidence about the similarity between two companies in the scope of the tediousness of job, the safety factor of factories, or knowledge and expertise of working forces for dealing with calamities, make this comparison to be skeptical. For instance, there is a possibility that Panoply Industries is well-equipped in the safety aspect, and can have the abrupt and in-field intervention in the cases that workers face the hazardous on the job; therefore, the amount of the fewer injuries reported by Panoply Industries is for the sake of this high-level safety factor rather than an-hour shorter occupation shift.
The other issue with the note is the recent government study which is considered as the reference for highlighting the fatigue and lack of sleep as the main reason for on-job- accidents. In fact, this study is ambiguous and cannot be accepted as a reliable source for this conclusion; since there are no pieces of evidence about the scope of the study, considered the category of job, or even the studied group’s individual feature. Furthermore, the generalization of finding in a specific study to the entire target population is plausible in the case that considered case study is indicative of the target population. For instance, at this recent study, maybe the government merely considered the on-job-hazardous take place in driving occupation for drivers, in this scenario, the overgeneralization of this finding to the working condition at the industries is not logical and reliable.
Finally, even with the acceptance the sleep deprivation as the main cause of on-job-accidents of Butler Manufacturing, there is no clue to give the guarantee that the hour shorted from the working shift of the workers in this company will be allocated for the sleeping hours by the workers. There is the probability that this one hour spends for family activities or individual chores. Therefore, this hypothesis, which this time will be the resting hour for workers, because of its missing cogent evidence is doubtful.
To wrap it up, all the aforementioned factors explicitly depict the shakiness and dubious level of this note and its requirements for further explanation about the similarities of two companies for comparison, the reliability of the government study, and the possibility of allocation of that shorten hour for sleeping by the workers. Otherwise, this note and its advice cannot be verified.
- Topic: Some university professors let their students choose their research topic themselves. Some do not. Which one do you think is better. Why?@ 73
- Young people should be encouraged to pursue long-term, realistic goals rather than seek immediate fame and recognition. 16
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? the ability to maintain a friendship with a small number of people over a long period is more important for happiness than the ability to make many new friends easily. 73
- tpo28 60
- Universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student's field of study.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be 66
Comments
Essay evaluation 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: 16 15
No. of Words: 538 350
No. of Characters: 2771 1500
No. of Different Words: 242 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.816 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.151 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.008 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 204 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 158 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 112 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 88 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 33.625 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.341 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.438 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.323 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.591 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.077 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 52, Rule ID: ADVISE_VBG[1]
Message: Verbs 'advise' and 'remind' are used with infinitive: 'to shorten'.
Suggestion: to shorten
...esident of Butler Manufacturing advises shortening the working hours in all shifts by one ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, if, may, so, therefore, well, for instance, in fact, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 79.0 55.5748502994 142% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2834.0 2260.96107784 125% => OK
No of words: 538.0 441.139720559 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26765799257 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81610080973 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09833404549 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 244.0 204.123752495 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.453531598513 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 909.9 705.55239521 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => 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: 33.0 22.8473053892 144% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 83.3410725573 57.8364921388 144% => OK
Chars per sentence: 177.125 119.503703932 148% => OK
Words per sentence: 33.625 23.324526521 144% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.375 5.70786347227 129% => 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 : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.143451527175 0.218282227539 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0479996669107 0.0743258471296 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0637219576578 0.0701772020484 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0795676660362 0.128457276422 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.047998945154 0.0628817314937 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.2 14.3799401198 140% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.52 48.3550499002 61% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.3 12.197005988 142% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.88 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.62 8.32208582834 116% => OK
difficult_words: 148.0 98.500998004 150% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 15.2 11.1389221557 136% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.