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

Merely based on unfounded supposition and dubious evidence, the author draws a conclusion that Quiot Manufacturing should shorten each of their three work shifts by one hour in order to increase productivity. At first glance, the statement appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that this argument omits some substantial concerns that should be addressed, thus not cogent enough.

To start with, the arguer assumes too hastily that fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers could be eliminated through the treatment to shorten the work shift. If the relaxation time for workers are prolonged, workers there may likely use the extra time to do other entertainment and recreation activities, such as playing cards or watching televisions. Consequently, productivity of the factory will not gain an improvement. To strengthen the argument, the author would be benefit from implementing some research to provide more information about workers’ arrangement in daily life.

In addition, this recommendation relies on a shaky presumption that productivity will increase due to less on-the-job accidents. There is absolutely no proof provided that to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents would definitely be helpful to productivity. This assumption is unwarranted because there are a myriad of affecting factors beside the amount of accidents happened in the workplace, which could also contribute to the productivity of Quiot Manufacturing. Organizational structure, arrangement of producing, as well as different procedures of the productions can entirely possibly affect the productivity.

Finally, the author claims that Quiot Manufacturing should shorten their work shifts, because the nearby Panoply Industries plant has a work shift shorter than its. However, the arguer assumes without justifications for the background conditions about the two factories. There are likely diverse discrepancies between them. The Panoply Industries might have more people to work, therefore it is necessary for it to adjust the work shift shorter. Lacking more information about the similarity of the two workplaces, it is precarious to conclude that Panoply Industries plant will be a valuable example.

In conclusion, the statement fails to substantiate its claim that it is a wise choice to shorten the work shifts for better productivity, because the evidence cited in the analysis do not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. Without additional evidence, however, we should be wary about accepting the truth of the argument’s conclusion.