The CDC makes some biased conclusions: Argument Topic #1, page 830

I probably am not allowed to share the argument topics word for word, although ETS literally shares all of their essay argument topics freely. But this book I am using is not made by ETS, and I do not really want to type it out anyway, so here is the TLDR version:

The CDC found that workers who experience work-related accidents are those with unpaid sick leave, therefore they must be coming to work while sick. The directions were to, “write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to determine whether the researchers' hypothesis is reasonable. Be sure to explain what effects the answers to these questions would have on the validity of the hypothesis.

Although on its face, it might be tempting for the CDC to assume that it is reasonable that employees with unpaid sick leave feel pressured to work during time of illness for fear of lack of pay, a deeper exploration of the issue would lead researchers to base conclusions on data rather than merely relying on correlation to prove causation.

The CDC found that the highest-risk occupations, such as construction, showed that paid and unpaid leave was correlated between the highest discrepancy in work-related incidents. Researchers should investigate whether this correlation is due to an underlying cause having to do with the the workers' perception of their paid leave, or if it is merely a based on other factors which may even include random chance. Is there a difference between the paygrade of workers in the highest-risk occupations who had paid vs. unpaid leave? Are there demographic factors such as education, socio-economic background, age, gender, ability to speak/read English etc. at play which motivate the kinds of people who work for the highest-risk occupations for no paid leave? If so, researchers would certainly want to try to design an experiment that eliminates these additional factors which could potentially significantly interfere with the reasonability of their hypothesis. If all the people who tend to work in the highest-risk occupations tend to be novice-level L2 English speakers, is it not reasonable to believe that some of their work-related accidents have to do with a failure to understand basic safety directions rather than a pressure to come to work sick? These same kind of demographic questions should be extended across the various spheres of the US work environment, and not just in the highest-risk occupations.

Researchers should also examine more information about the kinds of work-related accidents that occur and their underying circumstances. Not all work-related accidents are the same or carry the same amount of gravity for employees. For example, it might simply be the case that some jobs, such as those that involve sitting at a desk, do not carry a high degree of risk. Do options exist in these jobs for unpaid leave? If they don't, then perhaps the data suggesting that jobs lacking paid leave are wraught with danger is simply data conflation, making the hypothesis invalid. Researchers should also try to determine whether the workers really were sick, lacked sleep, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or otherwise mentally impaired at the time when the accident occurred. The mental state of the workers at the time of the accident would effect whether or not the original hypothesis is true; if it turns out that it is determined, either by reports directly from employees or through health reports/administrative documentation, that the employees did not report a significant difference in mental state, this hypothesis would be basing its evidence off of correlation rather than causation, making it invalid and in need of additional testing.

What my essay lacks:

• typos: underlying, wrought, apparently reasonability is not a word?!, pay-grade is not a compound word – needs a hyphen, socioeconomic does NOT need a hyphen
• What are the ulterior motivations of the CDC (to prevent and control disease) and might they be a factor at play?
• Was the study large enough, was there a representative sample, is there enough detail in the data?
• I should have said “x would strengthen/weaken the hypothesis.”
• Argument did not have alternative explanations
• I did not necessarily to the greatest job strictly following the directions. Must practice this.
• I did not have a concluding paragraph because I ran out of time.
• I should have had shorter paragraphs. They are probably looking for a 5 paragraph essay, with a topic sentence, concluding sentence, and supporting sentences in between.

This was a hard essay to write because:

1. It was kind of boring.
2. It was hard for me to quickly find the flaw in the argument.
3. It was stressful to write this with a clock running!

But I did well because:

• I had very few grammar/spelling errors
• I found all the arguments suggested by the model essay
• I did follow the directions, though I could have done better
• My essay was logical

Solid B+, I think. Could do so much better than that. Very, very disappointing. Grrr.