The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of Butler Manufacturing. “During the past year, workers at Butler Manufacturing reported 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than workers at nearby Panoply Industries, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. A recent government study reports that fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers are significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents. If we shorten each of our work shifts by one hour, we can improve Butler Manufacturing’s safety record by ensuring that our employees are adequately rested.
The author of this analytical piece has drawn an optimistic conclusion, from disjointed and incomplete data, that reducing working hours will lead to an improvement in the safety record. In the support of his position, the writer mentioned that past year Butler Manufacturing reported 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than Panploy Industries. Moreover, the writer cites the government study to show that sleep deprivation and fatigue are a significant factor in on-the-job accidents. Therefore, the writer recommends that reducing work shifts by one hour will reduce on-the-job accidents. At first glance, it seems plausible, but the in-depth analysis will bring out certain logical fallacies.
The major lacuna in the given article is the unjustified assumption that Butler Manufacturing and Panoply Industries are managing the same types of works. The works at the Panoply Industries are likely more safe than Butler Manufacturing. Hence, it's natural that Panoply has fewer on-the-job accidents compared to Butler. Moreover, the writer needs to mention the number of workers in both industries. Because the writer presented the fact that Butler Manufacturing reported 30 percent more accidents than Panoply. At the same time, it's highly probable that the number of workers at the Panploy is very less compared to Butler industries. Hence, Maybe Butler Industries had a more total number of accidents than Panoply. Therefore, the comparison between the Butler Manufacturing and Panploy is unwarranted.
Furthermore, the writer mentions the recent government study, and unfairly assumed that data presented in the study applies to all the company. There is no information about the total number of people evaluated in the study and there working hours. Also, it's necessary to present the work they were doing and their daily work cycle. Maybe the study focus on the more hardworking jobs compared to Butler Manufacturer. At the same time, it's highly probable that people evaluated in the study had not been skillful enough to do a particular task, which caused more accidents. It is also likely that other significant factors affect in-the-job accidents, which may be presented in the government study but the writer had not considered those factors or mentioned these factors. Hence, it would be unreasonable to assume that a reduction in the working hours will help to reduce the total number of accidents at Butler Manufacturing. Also, it's necessary to have information regarding the changes done in the machinery or workforce at the Bulter Manufacturing last year. Because if there had been more complex machinery installed then workers may be made some error while handling it which caused the accidents. Therefore, the suggestion that shortening work shifts by one hour may not have any effect in reducing accidents.
Given the above, suggestion given by the writer seems extremely unreasonable. All things considering, it may be said that the writer has failed to make a convincing argument because of the complete absence of the evidence needed. No convincing reasoning is given. The argument ends with an entirely unjustified optimistic conclusion based on the wishy-washy observations that are likely to be incorrect.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-02 | gre_test | 78 | view |
| 2023-02-22 | vishals | 65 | view |
| 2023-02-22 | vishals | 66 | view |
| 2023-01-08 | Sk. Tashrif Uddin | 68 | view |
| 2022-09-18 | sir alex yadav | 52 | view |
- The following appeared in a letter from a firm providing investment advice to a client Homes in the northeastern United States where winters are typically cold have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating Last year that region experienced t 80
- In most professions and academic fields imagination is more important than knowledge 66
- Claim Knowing about the past cannot help people to make important decisions today Reason We are not able to make connections between current events and past events until we have some distance from both 50
- Claim Any piece of information referred to as a fact should be mistrusted since it may well be proven false in the future Reason Much of the information that people assume is factual actually turns out to be inaccurate 54
- Knowing about the past cannot help people to make important decisions today 58
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 504 350
No. of Characters: 2680 1500
No. of Different Words: 222 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.738 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.317 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.809 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 203 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 151 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 114 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 89 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.667 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.254 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.556 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.308 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.469 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.086 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 403, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Because” 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.
...e number of workers in both industries. Because the writer presented the fact that Butl...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1066, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Because” 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.
... at the Bulter Manufacturing last year. Because if there had been more complex machiner...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, hence, if, may, moreover, regarding, so, then, therefore, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2739.0 2260.96107784 121% => OK
No of words: 504.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.43452380952 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73813722054 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91057767936 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 227.0 204.123752495 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.450396825397 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 864.9 705.55239521 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.9417284786 57.8364921388 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.444444444 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6666666667 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.48148148148 5.70786347227 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.334402659911 0.218282227539 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0976300986234 0.0743258471296 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0940317873358 0.0701772020484 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.198914197759 0.128457276422 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.149249524111 0.0628817314937 237% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.21 12.5979740519 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.32 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 98.500998004 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => 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.