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

The argument that decrease of work shifts by one hour will significantly reduce the on-job accident rate in Quiot Manufacturing, may seem to be logical at first glance. The author, a vice president of Quiot Manufacturing, makes a valid argument, one that could be correct if its premises were true. However, his conclusion relies on assumptions for which there is no supporting evidence and uses terms that lack definition.

First, the author has assumed that a majority of on-the-job accidents occurring in Quiot Manufacturing are a result of fatigue and sleep deprivition. However, there may be other reasons which could have caused the accidents. For example, the employees may not be strictly adhering to security measures and other precautions to prevent work hazards. The protective measures may not have been enforced properly. The company may not be maintaining its equipments properly and faulty equipments may be causing majority of on-the-job accidents. If he were to provide evidence linking on-the-job accidents in Quiot Manufacturing to employees' fatigue while ruling out other possibilities, it would strengthen his argument.

Second, the author has assumed that the only reason that nearby Panoply Industries plant has a lower rate of on-the-job accidents is that their shifts are shorter by one hours to those of Quiot Manufacturing. Here, the author has failed to draw any parallels in the nature of work and working environment of Quiot Manufacturing and Panoply Industries Plant. There could be many reasons which could be actually responsible for Panoply Industries plant having a lower rate of on-job accidents. For example, the nature of work in Panoply Industries plant maybe much less hazardous than that of Quiot Manufacturing. The administration of Panoply Industries plant may have put great emphasis on ensuring that security measures and precautions against work hazards, are adhered-to strictly by all the employees. The equipment at Panoply Industries plant maybe maintained regularly to prevent accidents due to faulty equipments. Finally, the employee strength of Panoply Industries plant maybe very different from Quiot Manufacturing, so the statistical figures may not give the actual comparison. If the author had provided evidence to draw parallels between working conditions of Panoply Industries plant and Quiot Manufacturing, it would support his position.

Finally, the author has not provided any concrete evidence to prove that it is actually the lack of sleep and fatigue that is responsible for higher on-the-job accident rate in Quiot Manufacturing. There is no evidence to show that the employees in Quiot Manufacturing are actually suffering from fatigue and lack of sleep. If the author had done some survey showing that the employees at Quiot Manufacturing are over-worked and given some evidence that most of the accidents were in-fact caused by the negligence of tired workers, it would strengthen his argument.

Summing up, the author may be correct in his argument that a one -hour decrease in shifts at Quiot Manufacturing will bring down the on-job accident rates. After all, an increase in rest time will surely not affect the employeees adversely. However, to support his current conclusion, the author needs to define the scope of his problem properly and submit more cogent evidence to support his position.