012 During the past year, Alta Manufacturing had

[bubble]

Your suggestions are most welcome.

 

The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Alta Manufacturing.

 

"During the past year, Alta Manufacturing had thirty percent more on-the-job accidents than nearby Panoply Industries, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. Experts believe that a significant contributing factor in many on-the-job accidents is fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers. Therefore, to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents at Alta and thereby increase productivity, we should shorten each of our three work shifts by one hour so that our employees will get adequate amounts of sleep."

 

 

 

 

The notion that fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers is a pivotal factor for the on-the-job accidents seems at first glance to be an obvious reason.After all,an exhausted worker doesn't remain as cautious as that of an invigorated worker and thus, easily becomes a victim of the on-the-job accident.However,the conclusion that curtailing the working hour of each of the three work shifts by one hour will reduce the accident cases masks other(and potentially more cardinal) causes of accidents.

 

First of all,as mentioned in the argument,the statistics of accidents in Alta Manufacturing is more than Panoply Industries,indicates that there are some prevailing drawbacks in Alta manufacturing firm.The work shifts of Panoply lesser one hour than that of Alta's is not necessarily the reason behind its less number of accident cases.It could be possible that machines(old machines) used in Alta has depreciated to a larger extent and when workers operates on it,eventually accidents take place.In the argument there is no evidence provided that machines of Alta are periodically given a maintenance service.

 

The argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the technological differences between Alta and Panoply industries.If Panoply is based on modern techonolgy,that is, most of the work is done by machines and number of workers are comparatively less, it will definitely have a low percentage of casualties.Furthermore, even if it is assumed that Alta also uses the modern machines,the question arises;are all the workers given a prior training about know-how of machines or most of the accidents take place in lack of knowledge?

 

Finally, prior to arriving at any conclusion,a more complete understanding of all other factors is needed.If the management of Alta takes a step only towards the shortening of working hours,the other prevalent flaws will not let the percentage of on-the-job accidents to decrease and consequently the productivity will also not increase.

 

 

 

[AmigoRo]

After all,an exhausted worker doesn't remain as cautious as that of an invigorated worker and easily becomes a victim of the on-the-job accident.

 

The sentence above doesn't make sense.

 

Overall I think you have analised the statement pretty well. But, IMHO, there are two other points that you could have addressed:

 

1) If Panoply Industries made teddy bears, and Alta Manufacturing produced explosives, then you could reasonably expect Alta Manufacturing to have a higher accident rate. The point here is that the nature of the respective operations have to be taken into account when comparing the safety records of two plants.

 

2) If Panoply had a total workforce of 23, and Alta employed 23,000, then again one could assume that Alta would have more accidents, i.e., the scale of the operation is also important when doing a comparison.

[bubble]

Originally posted by AmigoRo

 

After all,an exhausted worker doesn't remain as cautious as that of an invigorated worker and easily becomes a victim of the on-the-job accident.

 

 

1) If Panoply Industries made teddy bears, and Alta Manufacturing produced explosives, then you could reasonably expect Alta Manufacturing to have a higher accident rate. The point here is that the nature of the respective operations have to be taken into account when comparing the safety records of two plants.

 

Hi there,

I really forgot to add an apt point like this.thanks for your evaluation.In the 3rd para. of my essay, i have indirectly mentioned the other point of yours.Don't u think so?

[synthia]

Hi Guys,

 

Bubble, nice argument there! some Grammatical errors(minor ones).

Hey Amigo, I don't accept your point esp. regarding the explosives firm having largerno. of accidents. Actually, such a high-risk atmosphere would have even better safety and precaution techniques compared to a Teddy-bear company!

 

These are only my ideas though!

 

[AmigoRo]

Originally posted by synthia

 

Hi Guys,

 

Hey Amigo, I don't accept your point esp. regarding the explosives firm having largerno. of accidents. Actually, such a high-risk atmosphere would have even better safety and precaution techniques compared to a Teddy-bear company!

 

These are only my ideas though!

 

 

The example of an explosive factory vs Teddy Bear factory is a wild exaggeration. I offer my most sincere apologies. However, I still stand by my point that the nature of the operation has to be taken into account when comparing accident rates.

 

Furthermore, accident rates in themselves don't mean much, as the people at Chernobyl found out. But that's a different debate.

[bubble]

hi synthia

Grammar is one of the weakest area of mine.Can u please suggest me some way to tackle with this problem?

you r right that in a factory involving risk operation,the safety measures are higher than that of other factories;still,the chances of accident in the former is 1 in 20 whereas in the latter it is 1 in 50.So,i agree with amigo's point to some extent.

[AmigoRo]

Originally posted by bubble

 

hi synthia

Grammar is one of the weakest area of mine.Can u please suggest me some way to tackle with this problem?

 

I think the best, and perhaps the only way to improve your grammar is to read as much as possible. When you read, the grammatical patterns get ingrained in your brain, and before you know it, you will find that you will feel when grammar is not quite right.

 

Getting the grammar right is part of the problem. I know a lot of people, myself included upto a point, who tend to make their writing quite tortous. Again, if you read a lot, you will find that the ability to write naturally can also be acquired.

 

You could use a grammar book to learn the basics. But by looking at your writing, I find that the mistakes you make are not due to the lack of knowledge, but due to the lack of practice.

 

Your punctuation is a bit dodgy too. In my opinion, you should work on that too. Please please do leave a space after commas and fullstops(periods).

 

The way I have been taught, you should not use contractions (e.g. don't, can't) etc. when writing formally. I do not know what the current view on this is, thought. [Erin, could enlighten us, please ?]

 

Your usage of parenthesis is also a bit unnatural. For example,

 

other(and potentially more cardinal) causes of accidents.

 

In my opinion, commas would have done a better job. Again, I am open to correction.

 

If you wish, I wouldn't mind pinpointing some of the errors you have made in your essays.

 

There is a website called the Blue Book of Grammar (http://www.grammarbook.com/) which I found quite useful.

 

Good luck.

 

 

 

[bubble]

Hi amigo

Please do pinpoint my errors and thanks for ur suggestions.

[philipskaren]

i like your style of expressing yourself. it's really good. i wish i could do the same.

[AmigoRo]

The notion that fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers is a pivotal factor for the on-the-job accidents seems at first glance to be an obvious reason. After all, an exhausted worker doesn't remain as cautious as that of an invigorated worker and thus, easily becomes a victim of the an on-the-job accident. However, the conclusion that curtailing the working hour of each of the three work shifts by one hour will reduce the accident cases masks other(, and potentially more cardinal), causes of accidents.

 

First of all, as mentioned in the argument, the statistics of accidents in Alta Manufacturing is more than Panoply Industries, indicates indicating that there are some prevailing drawbacks in Alta manufacturing firm. The work shifts of Panoply lesser, which are one hour shorter than that of Alta's, is not necessarily the reason behind its less fewer number of accident cases.It could be possible that machines(old machines) used in Alta has have depreciated[1] to a larger extent and when workers operates on it, eventually accidents take place. In the argument there is no evidence provided that machines of Alta are periodically given a maintenance service.

 

The argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the technological differences between Alta and Panoply industries. If Panoply is based on modern techonolgy, that is, most of the work is done by machines and number of workers are comparatively less, it will definitely have a low percentage of casualties. Furthermore, even if it is assumed that Alta also uses the modern machines, the question arises;: Are all the workers given a prior training about know-how the correct usage of machines, or do most of the accidents take place in due to the lack of knowledge?[2]

 

Finally, prior to arriving at any conclusion, a more complete understanding of all other factors is needed. If the management of Alta takes a step only towards the shortening of working hours, the other prevalent flaws will not let the percentage of on-the-job accidents to decrease and consequently the productivity will also not increase.

 

---

Footnotes:

[1] Depreciated in what sense ? IMO, depreciation, when talking about machinery at a manufacturing plant, usually refers to the decrease in value. If I am referring to the technology of the machinery, I would use "obsolete" or "out-dated". If I want to talk about their physical state, I would use, depending on the severity, a word whose meaning is somewhere between "worn down" and "decrepit".

 

[2] Different style guides have different things to say about the usage of colons whith rhetorical questions. I have been unable to find out what the correct usage is wrt GRE essays.

[Akhtar]

I too have written on this.Please help me I have my exam in 3 days

 

The reason given by the vice president of Alta Manufacturing to shorten each of the three shifts to decrease the on job accidents may seem to be the right decision. After all, the fact that fatigue and sleep deprivation contributes to many on job accidents cannot be overlooked. However, the conclusion that the 3 work shifts should be reduced by one hour each based on the fact that Panoply Industries has 30% less on job accidents as compared to Alta Manufacturing because it’s work shifts are one hour shorter is too premature and may not achieve the desired purpose.

 

First of all, causes of the accidents taking place in Alta Manufacturing need to be clear. Sleep and fatigue can cause accidents but its not evident if the accidents are cause by mistakes committed by humans or because the working environment has some element which lead to the accidents like bad maintenance of machines or dangerous kind of instruments. It will work only if the people are responsible for the accidents but if they are not then we have to look for other reasons which might lead to on job accidents.

 

It is presumed that the Panoply Industries are doing the same sort of work that Alta Manufacturing is doing, maybe the work in Panoply Industries is of a safer kind hence leading to decreased number of accidents. More information about the kind of work taking place in both the Alta Manufacturing and Panoply Industry is required to support the argument.

 

Finally the assumption that the workers at the Alta Manufacturing aren’t getting enough time to sleep properly hence they are tired and fatigued needs more evidence to support it. For this statistical data should be provided which will clearly shows the actual hours of each shift and the time the worker has for sleep.

 

Since the argument could not provide enough evidence to support the conclusion so before it could be accepted more information is required. Decreasing the work shifts by 1 hour can give false confidence to the worker which can result in more accidents if the reason for the accident lies elsewhere.

 

[Kinno]

this is my first response to an argumnet. please send me your feedback

 

The suggestion that less work hours reduce the on job accident seems to be an obvious and perfect conclusion as adequate sleep and fresh mind is necessary for efficient work, but there may be more other important reasons which cause accidents. No evidence is provided to prove that only work hours cause the more on job accidents. Many other factors should be considered before making a comparison and conclusion.

 

Fist of all, the major reason for the difference in accident percentage is the number of work force in both industries. Alta Manufacturing may have 4500 workers while Panoply might have 450 workers only.

 

Another main factor is unavailibity of protection system of workers like fire extinguisher, protection clothing and helmets. Many accidents occur when the individual shows carelessness and lack of interest in the protection clothing and its importance. This might be the reason for the accidents in Alta manufacturing. A writer gives experts assumptions and believes. No evidence is presented in argument that shows that only lesser working hours in Panoply Industries is the significant reason for the lesser accidents. Writer does not mention the products of Alta manufacturing and panoply industries, which is also a flaw in the argument. It might be that Panoply industries manufactures teddy bear and Alta manufacturing produces explosives so risk of accidents is obviously more in Alta Manufacturing. Also Panoply industries might have advance and fully automated production area than Alta industries which also results in less work force and hence lesser ratio of accidents.

 

Also note that if 3 working hours reduces in a day, the productivity will also reduce in Alta Manufacturing, which simply oppose the author conclusion. Productivity is directly proportional to the customer requirements of product and working hours but not by number of accidents.

 

So, author should look deep into this matter and try to find out the above information, analyze them and then compare the ratio between the accidents in above-mentioned industries before making a conclusion.

 

 

[stoic]

----- heres my piece -----------

 

I believe that the statement possesses many logical fallacies, which are as follows.

 

First of all, there is no reason to believe that the cause of one-the-job accidents in Atla Manufacturing is due to the length of the work shift. Several other reasons could be attributed to the high rate of accidents, for instance a dangerous work place, or the level of precautionary measures. To assert unnecessarily, that the higher rate of accidents in Atla as compared to Panoply is due to the longer shift hours, is to make an illogical conclusion.

 

Secondly, the reason stated that reducing each work shift by an hour would increase productivity and decrease fatigue seems to be a highly unrealistic assumption. Increasing the sleep time by merely three hour daily would have no direct impact on work productivity in the long run. Although the claim by the experts cannot be refuted under a general assumption, it does not necessarily apply to Alta, under the information provided in the statement, which does not counter for the other sources of reasoning, such as the nature of the work place and the fatigue level of the workers.

 

Thirdly, a scrutinized analysis might reveal that the nature of work in both the companies might vary in terms of the type of labor required, and hence, involve a different relationship, as far as the impact on the number of working hours and the stress level of the workers is concerned. The direct claim presented here that the lesser number of casualties in Panoply is because of the smaller work shifts, would serve to contradict itself, without any comparison of the nature of work in both the companies.

 

Lastly, decreasing the work shift would decrease productivity levels under normal stress conditions. Moreover, the number of on-job accidents has no direct relationship with the productivity level, which is usually substantiated by over time work.

 

[27 minutes]

 

someone comment please ! :)

[milanjoshi]

 

The argument that Alta Manufacturing should shorted the office working hour so that there will be decline in on-the-job accidents is not fully logically convincing because the argument suppresses some critical assumptions.

 

Primarily, the argument vaguely expresses that Alta Manufacturing had more thirty percent on-the-job accident last year than the Panoply Industry simply because the work shift in Panoply Industry is one hour shorter . Author does not provide any details about the Industry , the products that is manufactured , the total manpower , the efficiency of workers etc which are the key factors relating on-the-job accident than just working hours. Moreover , there is no details about the on-job-accidents this year in Panoply Industries and the statistics data which provide evidence that the last year rule can be applied this year also.

 

Secondarily , the argument stresses on the experts believe that the significant factor in many on-the-job accidents is fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers . Many people believe this is true ,but there are several other factors which affect on-the-job accidents. For instance, the Alta workers might not have been properly trained and that most of the workers are not experienced which would definitely increases the chance of on-the-job accident. Overload of work and the worker’s negligence towards the assigned work are another factors which leads to an accident. The lack of team sprits and weak management also prone an accidents.

 

Finally , the argument hides the assumption that if the shift is shortened there would be drastic fall in the economy of the company. Author does not clarify in which way the productivity can be improved when the working shift is shortened. The only assumption is that workers get adequate amount of sleep which motivates them to be careful on their work whist decrease on-the-job accident. On the other hand, the company has to face the negative impact of decline in economy since it reduces the throughput. Moreover, the employees , will be on constant pressure to finish the assignment on time which incline to greater tendency of an accident.

 

Ultimately , the assumptions that there is 30% more on-the-job accident of Alta Manufacturing as compared to Panoply industry which had shorten the work shift by an hour last year , fatigue and sleep deprivations are the significant factors of on-the-job accidents do not conclude that the Alta Manufacturing has to shorten the working hour so as to reduce the on-the-job accident .Because these assumptions do not support all the diverging possibilities .Therefore ,the argument is not completely logically sound.

 

The argument could be strengthened if the author include all the major factors which comply the on-the-job accident , a clear analysis of the Alta Manufacturing regarding the employees demand and the working environment , the total quality management strategies of the company.

 

[vadi]

Finally , the argument hides the assumption that if the shift is shortened there would be drastic fall in the economy of the company. Author does not clarify in which way the productivity can be improved when the working shift is shortened.

Author provides no solutions to balance production

The only assumption is that workers get adequate amount of sleep which motivates them to be careful on their work whist decrease on-the-job accident.

On the other hand, the company has to face the negative impact of decline in economy since it reduces the throughput.

repeat.

Moreover, the employees , will be on constant pressure to finish the assignment on time which incline to greater tendency of an accident.

could this is pt be in suggestive tone & not assertion.

 

choti muh badi baat...

I think there is something jarry about the above paragraf.

 

 

[auroville99]

12.

The author asserts that the number of hours in each of the work shifts at Alta Manufacturing should be reduced by an hour to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents. He supports this by providing evidence in the form of statistics quoting that during the past year Alta Manufacturing had thirty percent more on the job accidents than Panoply Industries where the workers work one hour less in their shifts. The assumptions made by the author are not logically sound.

 

Firstly the author compares Alta Manufacturing with Panoply industries. Are both the factories producing the same product and have similar machinery? It could be that Panoply Industries provide better working conditions to their workers. They may be possessing better machines and having a better organization to deal with accidents and emergencies. Maybe the product that Panoply Industries produce does not require that much of skills that the products being manufactured at Alta Manufacturing demand. Also have all the on-the-job accidents at Panoply industries been reported or have some been kept under wrap?

 

Further, what reasons do the experts have to believe that the fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers is a significant contributing factor to the number of on-the-job accidents? Would reducing the duration of work at the three work shifts by an hour really going to avert further accidents? Also will this really increase productivity or just reduce the number of accidents- we just don't know.

 

The author has not considered alternate arrangements that could be made at the Alta Manufacturing to make it a better place for workers. Maybe they can provide better lightening and ventilation systems, snack breaks to improve the working environment of the workers. Is there disharmony among the factory workers? Are they fully skilled to perform the job at hand? Again,we have not been told about this.

 

The argument can be strengthened and made more persuasive if we can be provided information about the current working condition of the workers at Alta manufacturing and whether they possess the necessary expertise to perform their jobs and deal with accidents.

----

PS-most of the stuff has already been written by other TM members. I would like to know if the 4th para seems right here. In this para, I seem to offer possible solutions to get out of the mess. We are told not to take sides in the argument and just analyze and critique the argument. But I wanted to say in the 4th para that the author has made false assumption that nothing can be done in the factory itself about improving management and working conditions..plz let me know,thanks.

 

Also what would be an apt word limit to the argument essay- I am aiming around 350 words.

******

[mkopalle]

The writer concludes here that Alta manufacturing company encountered more on-job accidents compared to Panoply Industries due to longer shift duration and hence the work hours should be reduced. Thus suggesting that more rest hours allotted to employees would eventually raise the productivity.

 

Firstly, the writer assumed here that more accidents in Alta manufacturing company are due to longer working hours of the company. The actual data indicating the shift hours is unknown. It is possible that the work hours are reasonable and the reason for the accidents lies else where, such as unavailability of proper precautionary equipment.

 

Secondly, no information regarding the stature of both the companies is provided. They both could be companies of different technical statuses, with one being fully automated and negligible manual interaction and other a completely manually operated. Moreover, the precautionary levels in both the companies could be different hence the reason for the accidents is the low level of precautionary measures taken.

 

Further, one of the companies could have offered training for the workers and the other, not much of it. And due to lack of understanding of the equipment, the workers fall prey to the accidents. If without proper evaluation of the causes for the accidents, the company reduces the work duration, the productivity instead of increasing would decrease.

 

Thus the conclusion of the writer lacks the support of necessary data to confirm the stand. To make his statement stronger more information like the actual shift hours, amount of manual action required, the level of precautions adopted, the training levels offered to workers before inducing them into work area etc., should have been added, the absence of which renders the writer’s stand weak.

 

 

[Rukku]

YOUR FEEDBACK INEVITABLE FOR MY IMPROVEMENT...

 

The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Alta Manufacturing.

 

"During the past year, Alta Manufacturing had thirty percent more on-the-job accidents than nearby Panoply Industries, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. Experts believe that a significant contributing factor in many on-the-job accidents is fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers. Therefore, to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents at Alta and thereby increase productivity, we should shorten each of our three work shifts by one hour so that our employees will get adequate amounts of sleep."

 

The argument is groundless since the Vice President regards sleep as the crux for the increasing number of on-the-job accidents. Initially, it is mentioned that last year, Alta Manufacturing had thirty percent more on-the-job accidents than nearby Panoply Industries, where the work shifts were one hour shorter. When did the Panoply Industries shorten their shift duration? Was such a decision taken in Panoply Industries because there was a considerable increase in the number of on-the-job accidents? Moreover, the 30 percent figure is nebulous and does not make any sense because it does not give the total number of employees in each industry.

 

Above all, it is not specified whether the two companies make the same type of products or machinery. Panoply industries may have automated their process so that one can perform the task using computers.

 

Moreover, on what factors did the experts come to the conclusion that sleep was a significant contributing factor is not evident. Did they conduct any survey among the workers about their sleeplessness or drowsiness as the cause of accidents? Was sleeplessness the reason for any of the accidents occurred? Accidents might have caused due to the faulty machinery or any short-circuit due to lack of proper maintenance. Carelessness may be one of the main factors. Information regarding these are mentioned nowhere.

 

Finally the Vice President insists on reducing one hour so that the workers get adequate sleep. Does this one-hour reduction make any significant difference or improvement in their productivity? Will the laborers utilize that hour exclusively for sleeping or any other activity of their interest? We never know.

 

Based on these cases discussed above, it can be seen that there are no concrete evidences to support the assumptions. Hence his conclusion proves groundless.

 

[noamaan]

bubble... there is one SERIOUS error in yor essay... it is a direct COPY of the sample GRE essay given in the powerprep software in terms of structure...

dun u think using that as a template would be risky since it borders on plagarism ?!?!?!?!?!

[crackit]

please comment on my essay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

In the above memo from vice president of alta manufacturing argues that alta industries should reduce each work shift by one hour in order to reduce the number of on-job accidents. Vice president's argument is based on incorrect comparision with nearby panolpy industries. Also the argument suffers from the incorrect interpretation of the data.

 

First of all, it is not mentioned that alta and panoply indsutries are involved in manufacturing of same kind of products and there is not much diffrence in working conditions of the teo industries. In case the two industries are involved in manufacturing diffrent kind of products, then we can not comapre the accident rates in two comanies. For example, if alta manufacures automobiles and panoply is involved in food products then the accident in case of alta is certainly going to be higer.

 

Even if suppose that working condoitions in two companies are simillar, writer's claim that the number of on-job accidents in alta is much higer compared to the on-job accidents in panoply industries. It might be case that total number of employes in alta is much bigger than panoply. For example, the number of employes in alta might be 1000 while the panoply has only 500. Thus, even though number of on-job accidents reported in alta were 30% higher than those reported in panoply, the ratio of number of accidents to number of employees is less for alta idustires. Thus, more number of accidents does not necessarily means that rate of accidents is also higher.

 

Also, the writer considers only the sleep and fatigue factors responsible for the on-job accidents. There are various others factors like safety measures employed, working conditions, machinery involved. It also depends upon the skill of the involved labors. Labors in panoply industries may be wearing specail suits to avoid the accidents. Thus, we would like to ensure that there are these factors are not resonsible for the higher rate of the accidents.

 

Thus, to strengthen the arguement the writer should provide the ratio of accident to toal number of employees to draw any meaningful conclusion. Also he should provide sufficient reasons to convince that ther are no other factors affecting the number of on-job accidents.

[tictactoe]

PLEASE COMMENT ON THIS !!!!

"During the past year, Alta Manufacturing had thirty percent more on-the-job accidents than nearby Panoply Industries, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. Experts believe that a significant contributing factor in many on-the-job accidents is fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers. Therefore, to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents at Alta and thereby increase productivity, we should shorten each of our three work shifts by one hour so that our employees will get adequate amounts of sleep."

 

The speaker's argument to shorten the work shifts to reduce the number of on-job accidents and to increase productivity is unpersuasive with respect to some critical points.Firstly,the assumption that the inadequate amount of sleep is the real cause behind the on-job accidents in unconvincing.It is quite possible that working environment,including the machines at the workplace do not have safety equipments installed,or the workers are not given sufficient initial training to work which leads to inefficient use of equipmenst thereby leading to frequent accidents.Thus,without knowing the real reason of accidents ,shortening the work shifts is not a viable solution.

Secondly,attributing the lesser number of accidents at Panoply Industries to shorter work shifts is also not cogent.It might be possible that workers at Panoply are more trained than at Alta,or they might be given regular weekly training on safety measures which is not a trend in Alta.A separate unit of experienced workers to deal with heavy weight machines which are more prone to accidents ,is employed which leads to prevention of frequent accidents .

Also,even if it is assumed that fatigue and sleep deprivation is the main contributing factor in accidents and work shifts are shorten by one hour ,keeping a credulity that workers will utilize this one hour time for sleep is not sure.It is also possible that the workers use this one hour before working hour to indulge in other part-time job for earning additional money.This might increase the fatigue and make them less efficient at Alta Manufacturing.

Another argument to the speaker's concern about increasing productivity is that if three work shifts each is shortened by one hour there will be less working hours.In race of manufacturing large number of products the quality of items may degrade thereby the quantity might increase but company's profits may decline.Also,the workers might not be efficient enough to achieve same productivity as earlier in this shorten working hours.

 

Lastly,without looking for other options available to prevent on-job accidents ,shortening working hours is not a feasible solution to the problem at hand.More safety measures can be taken ,more efficient training can be given,safety alarms can be installed to indicate a fault in a machine or during a power-cut so that workers move out of work place at the earliest to prevent accidents.

 

In conclusion,the argument is unconvincing in certain points.To better assess the argument,exact cause of frequent on-job accidents at Alta is to be reasoned and presented.Also,the working conditions at Panoply should be compared to Alta to find the reason which leads to lesser accidents at Panoply.The speaker should also provide a convincing contention that how less working hours will lead to increased productivity .Lastly,other measures which can be deployed to prevent accidents should be also be taken into consideration prior to the argument stated.

 

 

[ronzee]

Initially you work for money and then later money works for you

[romy]

hey frds i m posting 1st few essays... help me pointing my errors..

severe criticism is welcomed!:D:cool:

 

The conclusion in the memo of vice president is quite logical on first look, but fails to convince the solution sought by him/her. There are many points which vice president forgets to note down.

 

It is nowhere mentioned that the manufacturing done in two companies is same. If at all it is not same then accident rates cannot be compared. It is also not mentioned that how serious were the accidents? If all these accidents were “TOUCH AND GO” then it is not a serious case of concern. The other thing, which is not mentioned, is the working environment. If the working environment is better in Panoply then accident rate is bound to reduce. Working place should be lightened one, it should have good air circulation and it should encourage to workers to do more work. For this various improvements can be done. But firstly we have to basic requirements stated above. Then other things which can reduce the fatigue can be introduction of music in plant. Of course till we don’t know the manufacturing of the company correct remedies can not be found out. Also to reduce accident rates, safety precautions should be taken. The brief overview of precautions taken at the plant would have helped to draw any conclusion. It may be possible that safety precautions at Panoply are better than Alta.

 

The other factors governing the overall safety of any plant is training of employees. Employee should be trained well and should be skilled one to avoid accidents. No status of such training is mentioned in the paragraph.

 

The last point states that reducing one hour from the shift will increase productivity. This seems to be baseless argument. If one hour is reduced at the end of the shift then fatigue till end of shift will be same! Instead he should try introducing breaks in between the shift so that workers could get freshen up.

 

Hence conclusion drawn is premature and certainly needs a deep thinking before any decision is taken.

 

 

 

 

[matek]

The notion that Alta Munufacturing should reduce their work shifts by one hour to lower the number of on-the-job accidents due to the statistics that the rate of their accidents is higher than the Panoply's , becouse their shift hours are longer, is at first sight convincable, but there are some flaws on the conclusion.

 

The main reason of the conclusion is based on the assupmtion that accidents at work is becouse of atigue and sleep deprivation among workers, which is not always true.

 

First the data does not say which typies of industries are at the two factories. This is very important since diffirent kinds of industries have diffrent rate of on-work danger. One could easily recognse that working in a firework factory is more dangerous than in textile industry.

 

Secondly, the working conditions like machines, lighting is also an important factor affecting the accidents at work. Let take an example that the Panoply factory works on morden machines and technology, while the Alta's based on old ones which on one hands increase the accidents rate, and on the other hand decrease productivity.

 

There fore to reduce the job accidents and increase productivity the Alta factory should have a deeper reseach on the factors, which could cause the high accidents rate. They have to take in account more aspects , not just the work shifts hour.

 

 

 

 

[sonali]

012 The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Alta Manufacturing.

 

"During the past year, Alta Manufacturing had thirty percent more on-the-job accidents than nearby Panoply Industries, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. Experts believe that a significant contributing factor in many on-the-job accidents is fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers. Therefore, to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents at Alta and thereby increase productivity, we should shorten each of our three work shifts by one hour so that our employees will get adequate amounts of sleep."

 

The editorial recommends that the Alta Manufacturing should reduced each of its work shifts by one hour to minimize on job accidents and thus increasing Alta Manufacturing productivity. To support this recommendation the author points out that last year the number of accidents at Alta was thirty percent greater than at Panoply Industries where work hours are one hour shorter. The author also cites that certain experts believe that on job accident are caused by fatigue and sleep depravation. I find this argument unconvincing on several reasons.

 

 

First and foremost, the author provides absolutely no evidence that on-job accidents are caused only because of fatigue or sleep depravation. Other possibilities might also be cause of accidents such as inadequate equipment maintenance or work training, or negligence of worker while working. On the other hand the Panoply’s comparatively low accident rate might be attributable not to length of its work shift but rather to other factors such as superior equipment maintenance or working training, or proper invigilation over workers. Thus by considering these possibilities, the author cannot conclude that during last year on-job accidents at Alta were merely because of more length of work shift than Panoply.

 

Secondly, the author also assumes that Alta’s workers are fatigued or sleep deprived, and that this is cause of some of Alta’s manufacturing accidents, and reducing each shift by one hour would be beneficial to workers to get sound sleep.

However, author provides no evidence that they would use this time for rest and not for some fatiguing activity. Without ruling out this possibility the author cannot conclude that reducing Alta’s work shift by one hour would reduce Alta’s accident rate.

 

 

Finally, no statistical data has been provided for number of accidents in Alta and in Panoply. The rate of accidents depends on total number of workers in Industry. It might be possible that in reality accidents occurring at Alta are lesser than that of Panoply. Since the argument relies on very minimal statistical information, we cannot rely on the information.

 

In conclusion, the recommendation that reducing working hours of Alta Manufacturing would reduce the number of on-job accidents is not well supported. To prove that shorter work shifts would reduce on-job accident rates at Alta, the author must provide clear evidence that work shift length is responsible for accidents at Alta. The author must provide the evidence that lower accident rate would increase the productivity of the Industry.