argu 32 revised

桌子上的梨

32 104 105 106 167

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

"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 amount of sleep."



The vice president cites an accident comparison that Quiot Manufacturing had 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than at the nearby Panoply Industries plant during the past year, he points out while Q' work shift are one hour longer they had 30 percent more on-the-job accidents. What’s more, experts say that significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents are fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers. Based on these evidences, the author reaches a conclusion that Q should shorten their work shifts by one hour so the employees will get enough sleep. He predicts this will decrease the on-the-job accidents while increase productivity. Granted that it seems to be somewhat appealing, the argument relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands.



In the first place, the arguer presumes that all relevant circumstances involving these two companies are essentially the same, Quiot Manufacturing is analogous to Panoply Industries plant in all respects, however, this assumption is weak. For the author fails to consider and rule out some alternative explanations such as inadequate equipment maintenance or work training in QM, or the inherent hazards of QM's manufacturing processes. It is entirely possible that P's comparatively low accident rate might be attributable not to the length of its work but rather to other factors, such as superior equipment maintenance or work training. Unless the arguer can demonstrate that these and other possible scenarios are unlikely, the deduction is open to doubt.



In the second place, the arguer arrives at the conclusion before giving out any researching result regarding the cause of it. Even if QM's workers are fatigue or sleep deprived, we are not sure by cutting down one work hour workers will sleep one hour longer each night. Experience tells us, however, that this will not necessarily be the case. Just as likely, workers will adjust to the new schedule by falling asleep one hour later. Moreover, by staying up one hour later at night workers might very well engage in the sort of late night social or even delinquent activities that would disturb their productivity at the factory. Lacking more specific information about how the workers use the additional hour, it is impossible to evaluate the reliability of the results or to make an informed recommendation.



In addition to these serious problems, even if that all the foregoing assumptions are justified, the editorial just simply assumes that Panoply Industries plant can serve as the model to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents and increase productivity for Quiot Manufacturing , and neither any anecdotal evidence nor any explainable scientific evidence is provided to prove this assumption. It's quite possible that accident rates at the two companies last year were aberrations, and during other years M's accident rate was no longer, or even lower, than P's rate. Also he fails to prove that overall worker productivity is attributable in part to the number of on the job accidents. Or perhaps, the shorten work shifts will cause a decline in productivity, might very well outweigh the change's benefits. Any of these scenarios, if true, would cast considerable doubt on the argument's conclusion that QM should follow P's example.



In sum, the author fails to constitute a reliable argument in favor of the recommendation. To bolster it the argument's author must show--perhaps by way of a reliable citywide study--that companies of shorter work shifts have higher security rate and productivity. The author would also bolster the argument by providing reliable evidence that the workers will use the additional hour for rest. Finally, to better assess the argument I would need to know more details about the two companies’ manufacture processes.

竹林中人

这篇文章推荐更多人来看看