The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Alta Manufacturing.
"During the past year, Alta Manufacturing had thirty percent more on-the-job accidents than nearby Panoply Industries, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. Experts believe that a significant contributing factor in many accidents is fatigue caused by sleep deprivation among workers. Therefore, to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents at Alta, we recommend shortening each of our three work shifts by one hour. If we do this, our employees will get adequate amounts of sleep."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
In order to reduce number of on-the-job accidents, the vice president of Alta Manufacturing recommends shortening work shifts by one hour. In this case, all employees will inevitably have adequate rest and thus the number of accidents should fall. This conclusion is buttressed by evidence which should be questioned in order to give a comprehensive estimation of the soundness of the argument.
First of all, we are told that employees of Panoply Industries (PI) have shorter shifts. However, is it only possible factor which may lead to the low level of on-the-job accidents? Perhaps PI has promoted norms of safety or created better work conditions. In this case, these unstated factors may cause the positive statistic. Consequently, the arrogant author's assumption that the length of shifts is the main reason of low rate of injuries is not warranted.
Furthermore, even if the author's belief is correct and the length of shifts is the cause of the lower number of accidents. Perhaps these two farms are not equal and the problems which lead to on-the-job accidents in Alta Manufacturing (AM) is not the same as one for PI. For instance, AM may be a company which is specialized on slaughtering cattle. In this case, AM's staff is working with sharp objects and dangerous equipment, this may be a factor which caused the higher level of injuries at work. Thus, if the major causes of the injuries at work are not the same for two firms, implementation of policy which were successful in one firm will not bring expected result in the second company.
Additionally to it, the argument claims that fulfillment of the policy will unescapably lead to improvement of the AM's statistic. However, if the two firms have the same major reason of on-the-job accidents and it is lack of sleep, the proposed policy may not bring the desirable result. For instance, If AM's worker has a young child who is ill, and thus the baby is crying and does not allow the parent to have adequate rest, the alteration will not cure the child and therefore, the worker will be suffer from lack of sleep. Moreover, some workers may have medical conditions which do not allow them to sleep well, this illness will not be alleviated by shorter shift as well. This two examples illustrate that a mere shortening of work shifts may not lead to enhancement in the on-the-job accidents due to the fact that it may not tackle the root of the problem.
In conclusion, the author of the argument avers that shortening of work shifts will lead to improvement of sleep of the AM's employees and as a consequence, to improvement in on-the-job accidents. However, the given by the author evidence has failed to prove that the alteration will address the root of the problem and thus it may not lead to supposed result.
Comments
Hello, my reader. May you
Hello, my reader. May you suggest how I could prove my position about argument 3?
I argue against this part of the prompt:
"to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents at Alta, we recommend shortening each of our three work shifts by one hour. If we do this, our employees will get adequate amounts of sleep."
My point was that causes of the on-the-job accidents may not be addressed by the proposed policy. However, you aver that Panoply ind. may have same factors. I agree with it but cannot ponder how may I prove this point by other examples.
Thank you.
Eugene.
first, it will not guarantee
first, it will not guarantee the employees will get adequate amounts of sleep by this policy, for example, people may use this extra one hour for compute games. Second, maybe it is still possible to decrease on-the-job accidents without removing one hour for all shift, or maybe removing one shift is enough.
I agree with you my third
I agree with you my third argument is that despite the policy people may not have adequate rest due to other factors such as ill baby, or worker's insomnia. From this prospect your advice at least its first part is similar - they will not rest enough because of computer games. The second part is interesting but it seems unreasonable to use it together with the first part due to possibility that they may be in conflict with each other.
If it is possible, give me example how my essay may be developed properly.
Thank you.
Eugene.
p.s. I hope that my request is not too arrogant. I indeed believe that it may help me.
Well, you are just doing
Well, you are just doing greatly. But to get 4.5 in GRE, you need three arguments all correct for argument essays; and you should not write the issue essay out of topic.
Also you will need some improvements in language.
To develop better essays, you may get some tips from this user who got 5.5 out of 6:
http://www.testbig.com/comment/34948#comment-34948
Hello. I have decided to do a
Hello. I have decided to do a work with my mistakes.
The third paragraph is obviously flawed. Actually, thank you for your patience with me.
It is a piece of argument I am dealing with : "Therefore, to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents at Alta, we recommend shortening each of our three work shifts by one hour. If we do this, our employees will get adequate amounts of sleep."
Finally, the argument claims that implementation of the policy and reduction of each of three work-shifts by one hour will assure that personnel have adequate rest. At the same time, the originator of the argument has failed to prove that AM's workers suffer from lack of sleep or fatigue. Consequently, the policy probably will not address the root of the problem. Additionally to it, even if the high rate of on-the-job accidents is connected with the insufficient rest of personnel, how can the AM's management be sure that employees will use this additional hour on sleep? Perhaps the employees spend this hour on leisure such as sitting in the internet, gambling or chatting in the web. Thus, the reduction of working shifts might not bring expected results and efficiency of the proposed policy is questionable.
Thank you. Wait for your comment. Your student, Eugene.
Yes, good job.
Yes, good job.
When you truly understand the arguments, you argued them very well.
Hello. I have found this
Hello. I have found this recent essay:
http://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/following-appeared-…
I am perplexed. It is a recent essay but a reader recommends doubting in the argument.
condition 1:
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 accidents are fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers. //maybe 30 percent more on-the-job accidents are not because of fatigue and sleep deprivation.
Should or may I argue like this? maybe 30 percent more on-the-job accidents are not because of fatigue and sleep deprivation.
Thank you.
is it only possible factor
is it the only possible factor
will unescapably lead to improvement of the AM's statistic.
will inescapably lead to the improvement of AM's statistic.
may not lead to enhancement
may not lead to the enhancement
work shifts will lead to improvement
work shifts will lead to the improvement
Sentence: Additionally to it, the argument claims that fulfillment of the policy will unescapably lead to improvement of the AM's statistic.
Error: unescapably Suggestion: inescapably
----------------
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not exactly. The two examples may happen in Panoply too.
----------------
flaws:
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 478 350
No. of Characters: 2258 1500
No. of Different Words: 189 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.676 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.724 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.696 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 149 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 107 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 86 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.9 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.637 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.334 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.535 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.109 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5