新g Argu 32 求拍~

lukebrehm

1. Panoply Industries plant, and it seems that (if you use and than don't use a comma, if you use a comma don't use and)
2. workers' fatigues (its a symptom so it should be singular, fatigue) and sleep deprivation
3. Quiot Manufacturing that triggered the on job accidents.  -NOT-  Quiot Manufacturing that made on-the-job accidents there were more than Panoply Industries plant.  ---talking about the amount of accidents versus the other factory is a different subject so it can't be in the same sentence
4. that contribute >to< the result.
5. It is possible that rather than working in the nearby Panoply Industries plant which may more safer, working in Quiot Manufacturing is more dangerous that always have on-the-job accidents in itself.  ---very unclear sentence i didn't really get what you were trying to say
6. In addition, it is very possible that unlike Quiot Manufacturing, the Panoply Industries plant was good at taking measures to protect workers which in turn contributed to fewer on-the-job accidents than Quiot.  -Not a big difference but it makes a difference for the reader----  In addition, it is very possible that rather than Quiot Manufacturing, the Panoply Industries plant was good at taking measures to protect workers which contributed to fewer on-the-job accidents than Quiot. All these lead the assumption that it is the longer work shifts in Quiot Manufacturing that made on-the-job accidents are more than Panoply Industries plant to an assertive one.  

I just want to mention that if you ever have the choice of quantity VS. quality than ALWAYS go for quality.

good luck