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 aforementioned argument is well-presented and appears to be relatively sound at first glace: since on-the-job accidents in Panoply Industries plant where the work shifts are shorter than Quiot Manufacturing is lower than Quiot, it seems plausible that shortening the work shifts will be the solution to decrease the number of accidents. However, as more light is shed on the issue and more detailed facts are concerned, the unsubstantiated assumptions lead me to question the validity of the argument.

First of all, the author assumes that Quiot Manufacturing had higher number of on-the-job accidents than Panoply since the percentage of accidents is higher in Quiot. However, the author should consider that the percentage of on-the-job accidents may not represent the actual number of accidents at the company. To be specific, it is possible that the percentage of on-the-job accident could be higher than Panoply not because employees on the Quiot work longer time, but because the number of employees in Quiot is smaller. In such a case, despite of smaller number of accidents, it is likely to appear that Quiot Manufacturing are experiencing more on-the-job accidents than other company. Therefore, more information on the number of employees in each factory is required to strengthen the author’s assertion.

Another assumption the author makes is that Panoply has lower on-the-job accidents than Quiot since its work shifts are one hour shorter than Quiot. Without further information on the different innate conditions of two factories, the author hastily assumes that the shorter shifts are the main contributor to decrease the number of accidents in Panoply. However, in all likelihood, Panoply might have safer working environment compared to Quiot since it might have implemented new machinery, and employees may have taken safety lessons to reduce accidents. If this would be the case, it is not persuasive to contend that the reducing the work shifts would reap a myriad of benefits to Quiot, and therefore, the author’s assertion can be weakened.

Lastly, the author assumes the soundness of the conclusion that employees will get adequate amount of sleep if the company shorten work shift by one hour. However, the author needs to take into account the possibility that employees might not spend the saved one hour to sleep. Instead, they might decide to use the time doing other recreational activities such as playing games or watching TV programs. In such a case, it is unlikely that the overall productivity will increase, and the number of on-the-job accidents at Quiot will reduce. Therefore, more concrete evidence is necessary to attest the credibility of the conclusion.

To sum up, the argument above is not cogent in many respects. To bolster the argument, the author should provide all the assumptions mentioned above.