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 than ours. Experts say that significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents are fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers. Therefore, to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents at Quiot and thereby increase productivity, we should shorten each of our three work shifts by one hour so that employees will get adequate amounts of sleep."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
In the memo, a vice president of Quiot Manufacturing recommends shortening each of their three work shifts by an hour to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents at Quiot and to exile productivity. The vice president provides example of nearby Panoply Industries plant where the work shifts are one hour shorter than Quiot in order to support the recommendation. However, these following three unstated assumptions must be validated first in order to evaluate the argument properly.
First of all, the vice president assumes that only fatigue and sleep deprivation among the workers are responsible for contributing significantly in many on-the-job accidents. However, this may not be the case. Quiot Manufacturing may not provide salubrious work environment to the workers. It is very possible that the workers are working with great risk in their manufacturing work. It is very possible that the manufacturing instruments present in the plant can cause great damage to human if they are not properly handled which is unknown to the workers. The argument fails to address this issue and so is seriously flawed.
Secondly, the vice president prematurely assumes that the workers at Quiot Manufacturing have same level of experience as nearby Panoply Industries plant. In reality, this may not be true. Workers, who work in Quiot Manufacturing, may be novice workers who have very little experience with working sophisticated manufacturing instruments and so they can’t take safety measures properly. On the other hand, workers at Panoply Industries may be very efficient, have a lot of experiences in dealing with hazardous instruments and can take safety measures very quickly. If this has merit, then the argument will not hold water.
Finally, the vice president, without any evidence, assumes that the employees will use the free one hour more time to get adequate amounts of sleep. However, this may not be the case. Perhaps the workers can use the time to play cards, to watch movies or to gossip with other workers. They may use the time in unproductive works rather sleeping. The argument fails to provide necessary evidences for this case and so is severely weakened.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands, is severely flawed as it relies on unwarranted assumptions which may be invalid. If the vice president is able to provide necessary evidences for the above stated three cases and conduct a more careful study, then the argument can be evaluated properly and accept the recommendation to shorten the work shifts by an hour. Otherwise the argument will not hold water and remain severely flawed as it is on the surface.
Comments
e-rater score 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: 22 15
No. of Words: 428 350
No. of Characters: 2166 1500
No. of Different Words: 186 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.548 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.061 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.835 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 150 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 126 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 82 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.455 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.124 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.773 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.327 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.526 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.096 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 366, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Otherwise,
... to shorten the work shifts by an hour. Otherwise the argument will not hold water and re...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, in conclusion, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2227.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 428.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20327102804 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.548423998 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91382306927 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.448598130841 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 706.5 705.55239521 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 59.039505614 57.8364921388 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.227272727 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4545454545 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.13636363636 5.70786347227 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.280153007616 0.218282227539 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0831165652263 0.0743258471296 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.117026441072 0.0701772020484 167% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.173827718386 0.128457276422 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.142268226407 0.0628817314937 226% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.86 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 98.500998004 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.