"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."

In the memo, The vice president concludes that the Panpoly's shorter work shifts are the resoan for their less number of accidents during the job. The vice president come to this conlusion based on the reported accidents in both of the factories and the experts' statment regarding on-job accidents. While the assertion from the vice president might be true, as it stands now, the argument relies on three unwarranted assumptions that hinders its credibility. First of all, the author assumes that every on-job-accidents were reported by the Panoply company. But this might not be the case. It is also possible that Panoply Company did not report every accident to maintain there gave wrong impression to others. In addition to this, the company only considered big injury as an accident, thus only report those accidents. If either of the above scenario hold true, then author's argument does not hold water. Morover, the author presumes that the work shift should be same as the Panoply company as they both are developing same items. However, this might not be the case. Perhaps company in which the author is working paying more for the extra one hour. It is also possible that Panoply Company remains open during holidays, so the company is leaving their manforce one hour early. If either of the above scenario hold true, then author's argument falls apart.