The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of a manufacturing company.
"During the past year, workers at our newly opened factory reported 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than workers at nearby Panoply Industries. Panoply produces products very similar to those produced at our factory, but its work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. Experts say that fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers are significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents. Panoply's superior safety record can therefore be attributed to its shorter work shifts, which allow its employees to get adequate amounts of rest."
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
The author claims that Panoply's superior safety record is attributed to its shorter work shifts, which allow its employees to get adequate amounts of rests. He or she offers an interesting argument, but it suffers from some logical flaws and gaps in evidence. While connections suggested are reasonable, there are many other possible scenarios that discourage us concluding that relatively few accidents are entailed by shorter work shifts.
To begin with, the author presents that workers at his or her newly opened factory reported 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than workers at Panoply Industries as evidence to his or her claim. Yet the author does not offer how many workers are employed in each factory. Comparing only numbers of accidents without considering the worker populations could be misleading. For example, if workers in his or her company is more than twice of workers employed in Panoply Industries, the ratio of accidents to employed worker has reverse results: His or her company has smaller accidents per workers ratio. Therefore, we need more detailed information such as numbers of hired workers to conclude that Panoply Industries has better safety record.
Let us assume, though that Panoply Industries has really finer safety record. Then we are prompted to ask whether the Panoply's better performance was due to its shorter work shifts. There are many other factors which could cause more accidents. First of all, as author provides that his or her factory opened newly, the worker's lack experience might be the reason. Workers might just need more time to adapt to the new factory. Working environment also could be another reason. The author's factory may have more dangerous or aged machine comparing to Panoply. Finally, Panoply may focus on safety education to workers prior their working. If the factory concentrates more on safety education or safety check before running machines, the incidents of accident could decrease. There are many other reasons that could cause more and fewer accidents. Therefore, it is hasty to determine that few accidents were occurred at Panoply Industries because of their one hour shorter work shifts.
Finally, even if we assume that the above assumptions will all hold up, we cannot take for granted that shorter work shifts will allow its employees an adequate amounts of rest. There are lots of other options than resting which employees can choose when one hour shorter work shifts are provided. For example, Employees may prefer working at other factory than resting when one more hour are allowed. Or they may drink and carouse rather than sleeping at their home. They could be even more fatigue if they shift their works one hour earlier. Therefore, without evidence to the claim that workers would choose to rest if shorter work shifts are allowed, we cannot affirm that shorter work shifts will induce better safety report.
To sum, the author's assumption that shorter work shifts in Panoply makes the industry performs better safety record is logically flawed based on the above mentioned reasons. To strengthen his or her argument, the author should closely all the conditions and possible factors affecting accident incidents. In conclusion, the author's argument reflects unsupported claims without clear reasons or evidence.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-03-08 | piyushac123 | 66 | view |
| 2022-03-08 | piyushac123 | 68 | view |
| 2021-03-03 | peterlatz | 77 | view |
| 2020-10-26 | yomi idris | 58 | view |
| 2020-09-28 | gksdnrwp | 73 | view |
- Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field 75
- The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment complex to its manager One month ago all the showerheads in the first three buildings of the Sunnyside Towers complex were modified to restrict maximum water flow to one t 73
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the planning department of an electric power company Several recent surveys indicate that home owners are increasingly eager to conserve energy At the same time manufacturers are now marketing many home applianc 66
- Many other companies have recently stated that having their employees take the Easy Read Speed Reading Course has greatly improved productivity One graduate of the course was able to read a 500 page report in only two hours another graduate rose from an a 78
- Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were believed to have been made only by the Palean people Recently however archaeol 60
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 12 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 28 15
No. of Words: 530 350
No. of Characters: 2732 1500
No. of Different Words: 239 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.798 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.155 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.424 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 224 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 169 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 93 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.929 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.676 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.679 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.307 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.483 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.179 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 591, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'workers'' or 'worker's'?
Suggestion: workers'; worker's
...r her company has smaller accidents per workers ratio. Therefore, we need more detailed...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 483, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...nment also could be another reason. The authors factory may have more dangerous or aged...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 162, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'amount'?
Suggestion: amount
...ts will allow its employees an adequate amounts of rest. There are lots of other option...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 13, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ce better safety report. To sum, the authors assumption that shorter work shifts in ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 325, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... accident incidents. In conclusion, the authors argument reflects unsupported claims wi...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, if, may, really, so, then, therefore, while, for example, in conclusion, such as, first of all, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.9520958084 170% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 48.0 28.8173652695 167% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2792.0 2260.96107784 123% => OK
No of words: 530.0 441.139720559 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2679245283 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79809637944 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.49378294248 2.78398813304 90% => OK
Unique words: 244.0 204.123752495 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.460377358491 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 864.0 705.55239521 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 19.7664670659 142% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.071320182 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.7142857143 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.9285714286 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.85714285714 5.70786347227 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.259536312452 0.218282227539 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0749255613078 0.0743258471296 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0819621424209 0.0701772020484 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.144811635604 0.128457276422 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.122807939772 0.0628817314937 195% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.04 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 98.500998004 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.