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 accidents are fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers. Therefore, to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents at Quiot and thereby increase productivity, we should shorten each of our three work shifts by one hour so that employees will get adequate amounts of sleep.
The writer states that the number of on-the-job accidents in Quiot is primarily due to fatigue and sleep deprivation. The writer also compares the number of accidents in Quiot to that of Panoply Industries. The writer however fails to provide substantial evidence to support his claims thereby rendering the argument fundamentally flawed and unconvincing.
First, the writer assumes that Quiot manufacturing and Panoply industries are similar. This assumption is however unwarranted as these two companies can differ in several aspects. For instance, Quiot manufacturing may be into heavy machinery and subsequently be more prone to on-the-job related accidents. A fabrication company for instance would largely differ from a fully automated food processing plant in terms of day-to-day operations. The writer fails to provide evidence to determine the scope of Qiuot operations and how similar (or different) they are to that of Panoply.
Furthermore, the writer claims that there were 30% more on-the-job related accidents in Quiot than in Panoply but fails to provide more information as regards the number of employees in both companies and the number of reported accidents. For example, there may be 1,000 employees in Quiot with 10 reported accidents while there are significantly fewer employees in Panoply with far fewer reported accidents. The writer could strengthen his claim by providing more statistical data. In addition, the writer attributes the cause of accidents solely to fatigue and sleep deprivation but fails to provide adequate support. There could be other factors responsible for accidents such as negligence, lack of proper training in handling complex equipment, faulty or poorly maintained equipment, etc. The writer can therefore support this claim by providing correspondence with the victims stating that fatigue was the major factor in causing these accidents.
In conclusion, the writer may not exactly be mistaken in claiming that fatigue and sleep deprivation were the major factors that affected on-the-job related accidents. After all, providing more free time for employees to get an adequate amount of sleep is would likely not increase the number of on-the-job related accidents. However, to support this claim, the writer should provide more information regarding the companies scope of operations, the workforce in both companies, and the number of reported accident cases.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-01 | Sophy@ | 70 | view |
| 2023-08-06 | sam 27 | 63 | view |
| 2023-07-27 | KalyaniHarbola | 58 | view |
| 2023-07-19 | shubham1102 | 58 | view |
| 2023-06-15 | Victory | 60 | view |
- In any field of inquiry the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions 66
- The first step to self knowledge is the rejection of the familiar 50
- Government should offer college and university education free of charge to all students 66
- The following appears in a letter to the editor for the West Lansburg News The tufted groundhog lives in the coastal wetlands of West Lansburg Ancient records suggest that the tufted groundhog once numbered in the millions Since they were declared a wildl 58
- 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 acciden 50
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 367 350
No. of Characters: 2013 1500
No. of Different Words: 166 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.377 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.485 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.843 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 163 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 132 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 90 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 70 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.938 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.464 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.812 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.404 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.563 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.122 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 208, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...in Quiot to that of Panoply Industries. The writer however fails to provide substan...
^^^
Line 7, column 523, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the number of reported accident cases.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, regarding, so, then, therefore, while, after all, as regards, for example, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 28.8173652695 56% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2058.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 367.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.60762942779 5.12650576532 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37689890912 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92875353686 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 204.123752495 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.463215258856 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 638.1 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.4235444476 57.8364921388 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.058823529 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5882352941 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.1764705882 5.70786347227 178% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.150993552088 0.218282227539 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.059329917639 0.0743258471296 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.052860519622 0.0701772020484 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.102353262947 0.128457276422 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0174455333027 0.0628817314937 28% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.3799401198 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.26 12.5979740519 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.59 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.