The vice president of Quiot Manufacturing recommends that the work shifts should be shortened by one hour to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents. To support his argument he draws our attention to the Panoply Industries plant, where are the number of accidents is much lower supposedly due to the shorter shifts. However, this recommendation relies on a series of assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands.
First of all, the argument is based on the assumption that the number of on-the-job accidents in the past year is representative and reflects the existing trend. Yet, the statistical data is lacking to support such a recommendation. It is entirely possible that the previous year was an aberration and all the years before Panoply was, in fact, a “leader” of on-the-job accidents. If this is the case, the recommended shortening of the work shifts would not even be necessary.
Secondly, the author of the memo does not elaborate on the safety instructions or policies of Quiot Manufacturing and Panoply Industries. As a result, his suggestion is based on a faulty assumption that those policies are the same. For that matter, managers at Panolpy might simply better instruct their workers on safety and focus more on the related issues. Perhaps, they organize seminars dedicated to safety at a workplace or place banners and posters showing how to use the equipment in a safe and correct way.
Thirdly, the argument rests on the assumption that the manufacturing processes and goods produced are identical in both plants since he does not provide any information regarding that. It can be the case that their products and therefore manyfactoring processes are so different that they are in fact impossible to compare. Perhaps, Quiot Manufacturing production process encompasses more risky and dangerous tasks or the environment itself. For instance, it could be related to the chemical industry. However, since we do not have any specific information about it, no trust-worthy comparison can be made.
Finally, the memo does not contain any details about the equipment used in the manufacturing process, which means that the author assumes that it either does not play an important role in supporting his argument or it is the same in both plants. Obviously, such an assumption is essentially flawed. The quality and age of the machines have a crucial impact on the safety of the workplace. If the quality is not up to the standards, the workers are left in a very hazardous working environment, where are job accidents are not surprising at all.
In conclusion, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the vice president of Quiot Manufacturing should provide more information regarding the manufacturing processes and the equipment used at the two plants and prove that they are similar or have the same probability of causing a worker’s injury. Moreover, he must analyze the data of a longer time period and not just compare the results of one past year. Last but not least, more information about the safety instructions of both plants should be provided in order to verify the author’s assumption about their similarity.
- Fifteen years ago, Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors. Since that time, Omega professors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes, and overall stu 41
- 32. 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 th 42
- The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of a large, highly diversified company."Ten years ago our company had two new office buildings constructed as regional headquarters for two regions. The buildings were erected by different constructio 61
- People s attitudes are determined more by their immediate situation or surroundings than by society as a whole 77
- The Northern Land Bridge 70
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 523 350
No. of Characters: 2623 1500
No. of Different Words: 234 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.782 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.015 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.955 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 193 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 150 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 111 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 83 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.792 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.534 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.268 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.508 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.055 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 346, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
... the years before Panoply was, in fact, a 'leader' of on-the-job accide...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, for instance, in conclusion, in fact, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 11.1786427146 179% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 28.8173652695 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 68.0 55.5748502994 122% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2713.0 2260.96107784 120% => OK
No of words: 523.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18738049713 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78217453174 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10072066896 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 247.0 204.123752495 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.472275334608 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 859.5 705.55239521 122% => 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: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.3841739579 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.041666667 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7916666667 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.20833333333 5.70786347227 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.236556664045 0.218282227539 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0601845765733 0.0743258471296 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0694444026928 0.0701772020484 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.126173290179 0.128457276422 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0627053996484 0.0628817314937 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.51 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 98.500998004 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.