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 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."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
In a memo, it is stated that the number of on-the-job accidents at Quiot can be minimized by reducing the working hour of the job by one hour. The author has come to this conclusion on the basis of less on-the-job accidents at the nearby Panoply Industries because they have one hour shorter job duration. Although at first glance, the author's recommendation apprears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it is based on three unwarranted assumptions.
To begin with, the author's claim relies on the assumption that the nearby Panoply Industries plant outcome is representative of Quiot Manufacturing. It is possible that the Panoply Industries plant have skilled workers, whereas Quiot manufacturing employees are not skilled much. It is also possible that the Panoply Industries plant does not require high skilled employees, but Quiot Manufacturing may require refined and skillful workers. If either of these scenarios is true, then the recommendation is significantly weakened.
Furthermore, the conclusion also relies on the unstated assumption that on-the-job accidents in Quiot Manufacturing occurs because of fatigueness and less sleep of employees. Perhaps, the employees in Quiot Manufacturing are getting sufficient amount of sleep but may be the employees are not skilled enough to operate machines in the work environment. Maybe employees need to be trained for operating such demanding machine. If the above example holds merit, then the original conclusion drawn does not hold water.
Additionally, even if the above stated assumptions are false, can we assume that the shortening of working duration by one hour will reduce the fatigueness and sleep depriveness among the employees resulting in less on-the-job accidents? Perhaps, even after the reduction, the number of on-the-job accidents does not change or become less. It is possible that the real reason of on-the-job accidents is because of other reason than fatigueness and sleep deprivation. As stated in the above assumption, the reson for occurence of such accidents is may be the demanding need of the machine or machine is too risky to handle by new employee. If the above scenario is true, then the recommendation is significantly weakened.
In conclusion, the author's recommendation as it stands now is full of flaws due to its reliance on unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to provide more reliable data for the above assumptions and offer more evidence (probably in the form of a systematic research study), then it will be possible to fully evaluate the viability of the proposed recommendation to reduce the working duration by one hour.
- Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances times and places Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing 83
- 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 our 83
- Competition for high grades seriously limits the quality of learning at all levels of education 58
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 9 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 420 350
No. of Characters: 2202 1500
No. of Different Words: 179 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.527 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.243 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.061 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 160 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 135 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 72 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.333 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.147 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.722 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.355 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.582 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.142 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 337, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...duration. Although at first glance, the authors recommendation apprears to be somewhat ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...cantly weakened. In conclusion, the authors recommendation as it stands now is full...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, if, may, so, then, whereas, in conclusion, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2251.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 420.0 441.139720559 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35952380952 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52701905584 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.13186660562 2.78398813304 112% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.438095238095 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 701.1 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.1342638982 57.8364921388 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.055555556 119.503703932 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.3333333333 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.83333333333 5.70786347227 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.268337940708 0.218282227539 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.085464639387 0.0743258471296 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0796389836463 0.0701772020484 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147729254763 0.128457276422 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0700956103335 0.0628817314937 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.3550499002 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.16 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => 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.