Kindly evaluate my essay
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 ours. Experts say that significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents are fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers. Therefore, to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents at Quiot and thereby increase productivity, we should shorten each of our three work shifts by one hour so that employees will get adequate amounts of sleep.The argument claims that to abate the number of on-the-job accidents and thereby increase productivity, Quiot has to shorten the number of working hours by one. This argument is based on the premise that Panoply Industries has fewer on-job accidents because it has working hours one hour shorter than that of Quiot. However, the argument makes several unsupported assumptions and stated this way the argument fails to consider several key factors which could call the conclusion to question. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily presumes that on-job accidents are directly proportional to the working hours per shift. To assert this statement the argument compares the on-job accidents of Panoply industries and Quiot Manufacturing, where the latter has 30 percent more on-job accidents. However, this assumption is flawed because it fails to mention several key factors such as the working hours per shift of both industries. For example, if the working hours are the same then one can remotely assume that it is the working hours that are contributing to the on-job accidents or if the working hours of Quiot Manufacturing are less than that of Panoply, further reduction in the working hours would not help to curtail the number of on-job accidents. This information is required to assess this argument properly.
Second, the argument presupposes that fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers is the main contributing factor to the number of on-job accidents. Stated this way the argument fails to mention several critical factors such as whether the product and the processes followed by both industries are analogous. If they are not similar the juxtaposition would not hold because the risk levels may vary and the number of on-job accidents varies accordingly. If this information is provided it would be helpful to assess the argument.
Finally, the argument readily assumes that if there is a reduction in the number of working hours, the employees would take the extra hour to get sleep would decrease the number of on-job accidents, and increase productivity. Stated this way the assumption is faulty, for example, a person X, who works in Quiot, runs 5k in his leisure time and the industries work hours are reduced by one hour, what if this employee goes an extra KM or two instead of allotting that time to sleep. There are other ways to achieve safety on the job such as implementing standard operating systems, assessing the risks involved, and communicating it to the employees who are prone to such accidents or hiring few safety officers.
In summary, the argument fails to convince because of the faulty assumptions aforementioned. If the argument had been drawn up on the examples as suggested and thereby plugging in the gaps in the reasoning the argument would have been far sounder on the whole.