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

The conclusion drawn by the author is weak and lacks substantial proof. The author make few arguments but there are many unwarranted assumptions. Taken as a whole, these unstated assumptions render the argument highly suspect. Indeed if these assumptions do not hold good, then the argument totally falls apart.

The first argument presented by the author regarding the percentage of on-the-job accidents that occurs in Quiot Manufacturing compared to that of Panoply Industry plant will hold good only if an accurate statics of the number of accidents for each is provided. Also, if the total number of workers are equal in both the industries, then the author's argument might hold good. If Panoply has less number of workers compared to Quiot, then the percentage of accidents will be obviously greater for Quiot. Therefore the author cannot state his argument by merely providing the data without substantiate proof for it.

Also, the author's arguments is based "Expert's opinion" who believe that major contributing factors in many on-job-accidents are fatigue and sleep. So, the author believes that they should reduce that work shifts for the workers to increase the overall productivity and reduce the number of accidents. But the author has failed to notice that there are many other factors that contribute to such accidents other than fatigue and sleep. It is indeed true that every worker must have enough sleep or it might make him feel weak during the work. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that it will lead to accidents. The worker might be inexperienced or not appropriate for the job, or the machines might have been faulty. All these will also lead to on-job-accidents. Thus, before concluding that fatigue and sleep deprivation is the primary cause, the author should look into these and then take appropriate measures.

One more important factor that the author has overlooked is that what held good for Panoply industry need not necessarily hold good for Quiot. This is because these two industries are different in many ways. Is the manufacturing procedures and the good produced by these industries are same? Do both the industries have workers of same capacity and capability? Are the number of workers same in both the industries? The author has to provide details about all these without which his arguments will fail. This is because if the industries are fundamentally different with respect to their manufacturing process, then there is no point in comparing the number of on-job-accidents. There are chances that the manufacturing procedure of Quiot is more dangerous than that of Panoply. Also, the skillset of the workers is important. Number of accidents will obviously be higher in Quiot industry if they have workers with poor skills. So, the author cannot conclude that the method adopted by Panoply will hold good for Quiot unless he addresses the above mentioned.

In conclusion, the argument makes a number of unstated assumptions that seriously undermines is validity. Unless these arguments are addressed, the author's conclusion falls apart.