"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 acc

With the information provided, this assumption leading to conclusion remains unfounded. This argument is well presented yet far-fetched. The author of the statement claims that Quiot Manufacturing had 30 percent more on the-job accident which asleep and fatigue is a pivotal factor for this event. This conclusion is ill-founded.

The primary assumption underlying the author's conclusion is that fatigue and asleep has a significant effect in job accident. Nevertheless, he fails to preclude other possibility reason that it could be multiple aspects such as lack of experience, degree of their skill. Want of such prudent answers to make the author of the statement full of holes. So, to reinforce the argument the author of the statement should have discussed about other reasons for accident in job which is considerably vital.

Furthermore, the author of the statement avers that to decline the number of accident at Quiot and increasing productivity and efficiency, we ought to diminish each of our three work shift by one hour fewer. As a matter of fact should get sufficient of sleep without a shadow of doubt. Indeed, the author cannot assert that there is a strong correlation between amount of sleep and accident. In fact, the author claims that one hour shorter work shift; it does not mean employee would sleep one more hour. Perhaps employee would utilize this one hour to entertain or have a party. So, to reinforce the argument the author should have provided about detail of this one hour, which this hour should allocate amusement or other activities.

Moreover, the author of the statement assumes that Panoply have greatly outcome. Without considering and ruling other possible reason into account that it might be possible better safe training and alarm system. It might be that worker in Panoply industries have safe consciousness. By considering this fact, comparing two cities is not valid. S, to reinforce the argument the author should have provided information about Panophy employee which has an indispensable criterion for decline accident in the setting job.

In short, as discussed, the author of the statement should have other aspects for declining accident such as alarming system and a variety item such as their experience, skill, knowledge and so forth. Besides, diminishing one hour fewer is not a sole reason for this challenge. On the other hand to make a rigid conclusion is very myopic observation method. This conclusion cannot be tenable. After all, feckless attempt with a fallible method could be noting a fool's errand.