The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of a manufacturing company.

"During the past year, workers at our newly opened factory reported 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than workers at nearby Panoply Industries. Panoply produces products very similar to those produced at our factory, but its work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. Experts say that fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers are significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents. Panoply's superior safety record can therefore be attributed to its shorter work shifts, which allow its employees to get adequate amounts of rest."

Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.

——————-

While the vice president states that superior safety attributes to the shorter work shifts may be true, he does not posit a cogent reason for the statement to be true. The argumenmt is rife with holes and assumption and, thus not strong enough to support that enough rest can prevent on-the-job deaths in a factory.



First, the vice president assumes that the products produced in his factory and Panoply are similar and thus should not be the reason for on-the-job accidents. It may be possible that the raw materials used inorder to manufacture the products release harmful chemicals that caused the deaths. For instance, in a ink manufacturing factory, the raw material can be varnish cakes that do not release any harmful gases when processed on the other hand, liquid varnish when processed releases harmful carbon dioxide, inhaling too much of which can be fatal. Unless the products manufactured and the raw materials used are carefully assessed, the vice president's statement cannot be backed.



Second, the vice president implies that the shorter work shifts result in adequate amounts of rest. The vice president has clearly not considered the places where the workers stay, how far they are from the factory, by what means of transport the workers transit, etc. It may be possible that the workers do not live in habitual conditions, or they have to travel for a long time which in turn results in deprived sleep. The factors definitely need to be considered in order to prove the viability of the proposed remedy.



Third, in addition to the raw materials and the habitual places where the workers live, the facilities provided by the company also play a vital roles in determining the factors leading to the on-the-job deaths of the workers. It may be possible that, Panoply maintains supreme hygene practices in their company as compared to the vice president's factory. Also, the drinking water supply in the factory, timely pest control, proper clothing are few subjects focused by Panoply in contrast to the other company. Therefore, in addition to the shorter working hours, the above mentioned factors also play a fundamental role in maintaining the health of the workers. Thus, the company needs to have a close comparison between the two companies in order to come to consensus.



A factory that cares for their workers, provides adequate facilities facilitate well being of the workers and in turn increases the productivity. The vice president's memo lacks careful assessment and thus needs to put more light on the above mentioned assumptions, else the memo holds no water.