The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of Butler Manufacturing."During the past year, workers at Butler Manufacturing reported 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than workers at nearby Panoply Industries, where the work shifts are one

The argument given is a generally nice one, however its reasoning is faulty in many ways. While the argument could look very valid from the outside, when given a more careful look, its assumptions are erroneous. The writer attributes the thirty percent increase in accidents in the industry to the number work shifts his workers have being having. He also gives reference of an industry which have less number of accidents with a lesser number of working hours compared to his.

First and foremost, The writer is comparing Butler and Panoply industries, he uses the wrong platform to compare the accident rates in this companies as he fails to provide information on the number of workers that are in both companies. It remains possible that Panoply industries have much less number of workers at their disposal than Butler's. Hence a much better way of comparing the rate of accidents would be to present the employees number of each of the industries and the number of accidents that happen daily. Only with this information we can know the percentage of accidents that happen in Panoply and Butler industries and compare both of them.

Secondly, it is worth noting that even if the aforementioned provide a legitimate result and we are sure that they accidents rate in Panoply is less than that of Butlers when putting into consideration the number of people that work for both industries, it would not be right to compare both companies with each other. As both industries could be producing different products and hence the chances of accidents in industry A could be different from the source in B. Hence to make his claim more convincing, he has to state clearly the courses of incidents in both industries while also stating what is produced in both industries. For example: you cannot expect a car producing industry to have the same accident causes and rates with a poultry animal food production industry. As both are using different machines that have different deleterious effects.

Last but not the least, assuming he gets the aforementioned arguments right, that is: both companies have the same hazard causes and they also Panoply has a less number of accidents with a less time shift. He must put into consideration the type of workers that are in Panoply as the workers their could be much more careful than his therefore making less accidents accounted for in Panoply. Hence only by analysing each accident that occurred in his industry would the vice president be able to provide a solid and lasting solution to it. Hence my advice is each worker be asked how and why he had an accident while working, results gotten from this research should then be analysed rather than simple trying to take solutions from companies around.

In sum, the argument is based on a erroneous reason that is backed up with fallacies. which have made the argument unable to provide its intended results.