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

The writer of the argument concludes that based on the research of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, employees with paid sick leave less get involved in a work-related accident in comparison with employees with unpaid leave at almost 28 percent; however, this conclusion cannot be accepted as it is in that it rests on a number of premises all of which can be challenged in one way or another; moreover it dismisses some assumptions which are important to draw an accurate conclusion.

The first problem with the argument is that data which the research is based on is not detailed enough. It does not show that how many workers are surveyed, and is that number big enough to be a representative of the whole and make a conclusion? Moreover, it is important to consider some factors like different regions and industries. If the number of workers is big and differences according to region and industry are negligible, the conclusion could be more reliable; otherwise, this result could just be assigned to a specific area or industry.

The second problem with the argument is that the research does not point out whether workers are questioned individually that they come to work during illness because of fear of lack of pay or there is another cause. If the workers are not questioned one by one, it can weaken the result since it might be a personal interpretation, and there will possibly be the other explanations for employees with unpaid leave who probably work during illness rather than fear of lack of pay. For example if the major part of examined workers is consisted of the hourly workers, it is reasonable for them to force themselves to work even during illness since no work means no pay.

The third problematic issue about the argument is that the research is based on the assumption that on-the-job accidents are actually done by workers with no payment during illness or not; however, it should be admitted through the research to draw a precise conclusion and strengthen the results.

To conclude, while the presented hypothesis is interesting, I would think that according to the above explanations, it suffers from lack of accuracy. The result of the research can only be accepted if the weaknesses already referred to are all removed.