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 acci

Discussion of the reducing on-the-job accidents among companies as a whole has come into vogue during the last decade. In the preceding statement, the author claims that to reduce accidents on job they should follow the example of Panoply industries by shortening work shifts by one hour. Though his claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers, we cannot accept his argument as valid.

Primary issue with the author`s reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. The arguer provides no assurances that the data 30 percent on which the argument depends is statistically reliable. Lacking information about the number of people surveyed and the number of accidents, it is impossible to assess the validity of the result. For example, if only limited accidents were surveyed, the conclusion that 30 percent decrease would be highly suspected. in the second place, the argument is based on a false analogy. The arguer simply assumes that reducing work hours as done at Panoply industries will result in declining job accidents for Quiot Manufacturing and other company bears some relation to Quiot Manufacturing. However, the author provides no evidence to support that this is indeed comparable. Maybe one company is doing metal works with high accident risk but the other one is only dealing with producing software for computers. Therefore, even though shortening working hours proved effective in reducing accidents there is no guarantee that it will work just as well for other company. As a result, we cannot safely assume that it will work also for Quiot Manufacturing. The author`s premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.

In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. The arguer assumes that just because decline of accidents follows shortening work hours, then decline has been caused by that reason. However, no evidence is provided to support that this is the case. The mere fact that shortening occurs before decline does not necessarily establish a casual relationship between decline and shortening of accidents. It is highly possible that other factors might also bring about the same results. For example, new security rules were applied at Quiot Manufacturing by security section such as rules forcing to wear helmet at work. Without ruling out these and other possible factors that give rise to reduction in accidents, the author cannot confidently conclude that shortening resulted in decline. In the second place the author assumes that fatigue and sleep deprivation are main contributing factors to accidents but he does not provide any evidence to support this is the case. Even if fatigue and sleep deprivation result in accidents it does not follow that they are the only reasons for accidents.

While the author does have several key issues in his argument`s premises and assumptions, that is not to say that the entire argument is without base. With search and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.

In sum, the author`s illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. If the author hopes to change his reader`s minds on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people