lowering working hours
The president of Alta Manufacturing Company proposes a reduction in the number of working hours by one hour. The suggestion comes from the fact that the company has experienced a 30% increase in the number of accidents compared to its neighbor, Panoply. The idea behind the president's proposal is that having the same working hours as Panoply company will also reduce the number of accidents by increasing the amount of sleep of the workers. The president's claim is dubious based on unjustified claims that reducing the working hours will mean an automatic increase in sleeping hours and that increasing the amount of sleep will reduce the number of accidents.
The president is of the view that reducing the number of working hours will reduce the rate of accidents. This claim is based on a comparison with Panoply Company, the neighbor which has a lower accident rate. Basing the claim on this alone isn't enough. The president is assuming that the lower accident rate is attributed to fewer work hours. What evidence is there to come to this assumption? Accidents in workplaces are caused by many factors. Faulty machines can be the cause. The lack of proper training of workers also increases the risk of accidents. One would also ask, are the safety measures the same between the companies? Some accidents are caused by a lack of proper safety measures. Perhaps Panoply company has more robust safety measures compared to Alta Manufacturing Company. To set the argument on a more sound footing, the president needs to demonstrate that factors such as safety measures and lack of training do not affect the rate of accidents, and that it's only the number of hours causing the higher rate of accidents.
Secondly, the president proposes the reduction of working hours to increase the sleeping hours of its workers. This suggestion seems unreasonable. One would ask how will the company ensure that the workers will use that extra hour to sleep? People do spend their time away from work differently; some use the time to visit friends and family or read books. In short, there is no guarantee that reducing the number of working hours will increase the number of hours of sleep. Unless there is a way to impose a rule and supervise the workers to make sure they use the extra hour to sleep, the proposal is not feasible. To validate the claim, the president needs to prove how the extra hour will be used for sleep.
In conclusion, the president's claims are based on unjustified claims that the amount of sleep is directly linked to the rate of accidents. The argument also rests on other unjustified assumptions that reducing the amount of working hours will reduce the rate of accidents. In order to substantiate the claims, the president needs to show that the higher amount of accidents is a result of an extra hour of work and that all other factors and working conditions are the same with the nearby Panoply Company.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-04-12 | Andrewbanda70 | 50 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 255, 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.
...ents compared to its neighbor, Panoply. The idea behind the presidents proposal is ...
^^^
Line 1, column 275, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'presidents'' or 'president's'?
Suggestion: presidents'; president's
... neighbor, Panoply. The idea behind the presidents proposal is that having the same workin...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 443, 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.
...ing the amount of sleep of the workers. The presidents claim is dubious based on un...
^^^
Line 3, column 1, 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.
...will reduce the number of accidents. The president is of the view that reducing ...
^^^
Line 3, column 242, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...nt rate. Basing the claim on this alone isnt enough. The president is assuming that ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, second, secondly, so, in conclusion, in short, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 72.0 55.5748502994 130% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2436.0 2260.96107784 108% => OK
No of words: 500.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 4.872 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72870804502 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57388733242 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.366 0.468620217663 78% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 761.4 705.55239521 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 57.1329291883 57.8364921388 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.6923076923 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2307692308 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.65384615385 5.70786347227 46% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.331312917994 0.218282227539 152% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.102485232601 0.0743258471296 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.111873743671 0.0701772020484 159% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.223630076606 0.128457276422 174% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0403744576341 0.0628817314937 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 14.3799401198 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.97 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.07 8.32208582834 85% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 98.500998004 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.