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 author of the argument has failed to convince us that the problem of increased rates of the on-the-job accidents in Quiot Manufacturing will be countered by shortening each of the three work shifts by one hour. The argument, as it stands, is based on questionable assumptions and a faulty line of reasoning, a fact which renders it over-simplistic and unconvincing.

First of all, the author analogically assumes that the two companies are of the same labor type. However, there is a big difference if the majority of employed workers in Panoply Industries work in an office-like environment, which requires intellectual work, while in Quiot Manufacturing, the primary labor is physically challenging. For instance, jobs that relate with computer science naturally have far lower, if not any, accident chance than jobs in a manufacturing factory where workers physically interact with huge robotic machines that can physically injure humans if used carelessly. In addition, there is no specific information regarding the actual number of the workers that each company employs. Hence, a 30 percent increase is statistically untenable if the two companies' workforce differs in more than one order of magnitude.

Next, the vice president assumes that the one hour shorter shift is a viable plan to counter the increased ratio of on-the-job accidents. This hypothesis is based on the notion that most accidents occur only during that one hour at the end of each shift when the fatigue has been accumulated and not randomly on any specific shift. However, if the accidents occur during the early or middle hours of the shifts, we can safely conclude that fatigue and sleep deprivation are not the major causes of the accidents. Other factors could be more important to consider, like the safety measures of the manufacturing company, the level of safety training of the workers and their awareness on safe regulations.

Furthermore, the author references the "experts" generic opinion that fatigue and sleep deprivation are the primary reasons for many on-the-job accidents. Giving no further information about the state and health of the workers in the manufacturing company, the author assumes that workers do suffer from these hazardous effects without giving any reference to any medical inspection of the company's workforce. Hence, workers could still be one hundred percent healthy, mentally and physically, paving the way of other possible explanations about the percentage increase in accidents as aforementioned.

Last of all, the author concludes that by reducing each shift by one hour and the number of on-the-job accidents the productivity will increase since the employees would get adequate amounts of sleep. Nevertheless, it is frivolous to assume that workers will use that extra hour for their rest, and not for something else like entertainment or hobbies, even if we accept that this hour is critical for their rejuvenation. Moreover, we do not know if the workers will react positively, as less working hours usually means lower salary. The author must supply clear evidence, like an official scientific study, that decreasing sleep deprivation among workers is primarily responsible for higher productivity.

To sum up, based on unsubstantiated assumptions and poor evidence, the arguer's reasoning does not provide concrete support for his/her conclusion. If the argument had included, apart from the author's frivolous interpretation on the given data, more numerical information about the size of workforce in both companies, actual numbers of accidents in the recent years for both companies, how the workforce would use their free hour and how they would react in a lower hour shift and finally some financial arguments that pivots the raise of the productivity of the proposed policy, it would have been more thorough and convincing.