A recent study by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that employees with paid sick leave are 28 percent less likely to be involved in a work-related accident than employees who do not receive payment for sick leave. Researchers hypothesize that employees with unpaid sick leave feel pressured to work during the time of illness for fear of lack of pay. On-the-job accidents are then spurred by impaired judgment or motor skills due to illness or illness-related medications. The highest-risk occupations, such as construction, showed the highest discrepancy between paid and unpaid leave.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to determine whether the researchers’ hypothesis is reasonable. Be sure to explain what effects the answers to these questions would have on the validity of the hypothesis.
The argument claims that according to the recent reasearch employees with paid sick leaves are less likely to get involved in work related accidents than employees who do not get paid sick leaves. Stated in this way the argument manipulates several facts and presents the distorted view of the situation, fails to mention several key factors, which could have been used to make the argument more substantive and clear. The conclusion of the argument relies on the assumptions for which there is no clear evidences. Hence, the argument is weak, rather unconvincing and has several flaws.
First of all, the argument claims that workers are pressurized to work when they do not get paid sick leaves. Though this can be the reason but claiming this to be alone is false. There can be many reasons for which worker are forced to work during the period when they are sick. Hence, the claim is stretch. To illustrate this let us look at the example of person who has several responsibilites, for example, education of children, medicine of sick parents. These responsibilites can pressurized the worker to work even on the days when is unable to work with all his senses. Clearly, in the above situation claim of the Author fails. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that the workers who were tested had no responsibilities in their homes. Love for the family often forces people to push their limits.
Second, the argument's claim can be falsified by taking the note of the work of workers, there is no mention of the work of the employees. There can be some work which gets more affected when the workers are even slightly distracted from their work. To illustrate this, take the instance of home builders, labours who work in construction works need to be in greater attention all the time, unlike desk job workers who are responsilbe to work with only computers. While in the case of labour who work as builders, their slight mistake can be fatal for them and many, but in this case of desk job workers they are able to sleep on their desks. If the argument had provided evidences about the work environment of the workers who participated in the reasearch then the argument would have been more convincing.
Finally, the research presented also lacks a depth of detail that would help us to evaluate the significance of the results. What was the size of the group which was studied? Whether the group was large enough to extrapolate the result to the large population. What was the heterogeneity of the group in terms of work culture, work envioronment, pay per day? Does that group cover every type of wroking conditions, work culture, geographical position of the work place. Without convincing answers to these questions, on is left with the impression that argument if more of a wishful thinking rather than a substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therfore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts like working culture, geographical position, especailly working environment. In order to assess the merits of the situation. It is necessary to have full knowledge of all the relevant facts. In this particular case whole argument can be falsified, if we consider the family conditions of the workers. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-09-24 | KnockingOn | 63 | view |
| 2022-05-04 | jdkarmakar2021@gmail.com | 82 | view |
| 2021-11-09 | Prash | 50 | view |
| 2021-10-25 | bonfireofbunnies@aol.com | 50 | view |
| 2021-08-08 | Adz12345 | 58 | view |
- Write a response in which you discuss to which extent you agree or disagree with the claim.Claim: Luck plays more of a role in determining success than work ethics does. 50
- this essay topic was given in Manhattan 5lb book for GRE. That's why I attempted it. It would be great If you can grade it. The question says write a response in which you discuss to which extent you agree or disagree with the claim.Claim: Luck plays more 50
- A recent study by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that employees with paid sick leave are 28 percent less likely to be involved in a work-related accident than employees who do not receive payment for sick leave. Researchers hypothesiz 62
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: The argument claims that according to the recent reasearch employees with paid sick leaves are less likely to get involved in work related accidents than employees who do not get paid sick leaves.
Error: reasearch Suggestion: research
Sentence: To illustrate this let us look at the example of person who has several responsibilites, for example, education of children, medicine of sick parents.
Error: responsibilites Suggestion: responsibilities
Sentence: These responsibilites can pressurized the worker to work even on the days when is unable to work with all his senses.
Error: responsibilites Suggestion: responsibilities
Sentence: To illustrate this, take the instance of home builders, labours who work in construction works need to be in greater attention all the time, unlike desk job workers who are responsilbe to work with only computers.
Error: responsilbe Suggestion: responsible
Sentence: If the argument had provided evidences about the work environment of the workers who participated in the reasearch then the argument would have been more convincing.
Error: reasearch Suggestion: research
Sentence: What was the heterogeneity of the group in terms of work culture, work envioronment, pay per day?
Error: envioronment Suggestion: environment
Sentence: Does that group cover every type of wroking conditions, work culture, geographical position of the work place.
Error: wroking Suggestion: working
Sentence: In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therfore unconvincing.
Error: therfore Suggestion: therefore
Sentence: It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts like working culture, geographical position, especailly working environment.
Error: especailly Suggestion: especially
----------------
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not exactly
argument 3 -- not OK
----------------
see the sample answer:
https://www.testbig.com/comment/38630#comment-38630
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 9 2
No. of Sentences: 30 15
No. of Words: 577 350
No. of Characters: 2804 1500
No. of Different Words: 255 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.901 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.86 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.698 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 184 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 142 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 99 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 65 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.233 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.241 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.467 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.285 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.463 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.097 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 542, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... worker to work even on the days when is unable to work with all his senses. Clea...
^^
Line 5, column 415, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a are'.
Suggestion: who is a are
...n all the time, unlike desk job workers who are responsilbe to work with only computers...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 643, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... they are able to sleep on their desks. If the argument had provided evidences abo...
^^
Line 7, column 176, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Whether” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...he size of the group which was studied? Whether the group was large enough to extrapola...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 599, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ent if more of a wishful thinking rather than a substantive evidence. In conc...
^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...g rather than a substantive evidence. In conclusion, the argument is flawed fo...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, hence, if, look, second, so, then, while, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.6327345309 173% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 22.0 13.6137724551 162% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 79.0 55.5748502994 142% => OK
Nominalization: 31.0 16.3942115768 189% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2877.0 2260.96107784 127% => OK
No of words: 577.0 441.139720559 131% => OK
Chars per words: 4.98613518198 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90110439584 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79297265374 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 270.0 204.123752495 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.467937608319 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 876.6 705.55239521 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 19.7664670659 152% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.5051063584 57.8364921388 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.9 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2333333333 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.63333333333 5.70786347227 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 17.0 6.88822355289 247% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.232481285546 0.218282227539 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0593095475558 0.0743258471296 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0799195581344 0.0701772020484 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.133691506836 0.128457276422 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0632176485915 0.0628817314937 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.3799401198 81% => 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: 11.66 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.11 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 129.0 98.500998004 131% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.