Some organisations believe that their employees should dress smartly. Others value quality of work above appearance.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Currently, while there are a great number of companies have their certain requirement facade for their workers, the others tend to prioritize productivity of employees rather than their dress styles. Both sides and my perspective regarding whether which is accurate or not will be mentioned in this essay.
On the one hand, having a smart dressing style would have a positive impact on the company. How the workers look profoundly affects the image of their organizations. For example, having standardized appearance would show customers their sense of professionals and serious while working. Therefore the company will be able to attract more customers and they might accomplish their tasks. Another reason is employees usually tend to cooperate with a person who dress smartly. People dressing smartly is thought to have more experience and capable of doing difficult task. Thus, dressing genuienly is an essential factor leading to success in the future.
On the other hand, I believe work efficiency should be valued since it is the main key to the development of the company. Provided that an employee is wary of his or her facade, but little capable of coping with problems, all of the efforts would be wasteful. Specifically, people should have a clear understanding that only by working efficiently can they be promoted while clothes are merely a part of the criteria. Therefore, working quality should be taken into account as well.
Conclusively, appearance is favoured for its represent whether the company is worth-trusting while, however, the performance of the duty is considered most crucial. From my own perspective, employees should be encouraged to dress properly, as well as focus on their efficacy spontaneously.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 199, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ations. For example, having standardized appearance would show customers their se...
^^
Line 3, column 289, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...rofessionals and serious while working. Therefore the company will be able to attract mor...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 223, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...little capable of coping with problems, all of the efforts would be wasteful. Specifically...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, look, regarding, so, therefore, thus, well, while, for example, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 24.0651302605 79% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 41.998997996 74% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.3376753507 72% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1468.0 1615.20841683 91% => OK
No of words: 275.0 315.596192385 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.33818181818 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07223819929 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95981683597 2.80592935109 105% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 176.041082164 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.625454545455 0.561755894193 111% => OK
syllable_count: 450.9 506.74238477 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 5.43587174349 18% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.0996152642 49.4020404114 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.8666666667 106.682146367 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3333333333 20.7667163134 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.4 7.06120827912 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.232922295168 0.244688304435 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0741822306827 0.084324248473 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0493030503414 0.0667982634062 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.135648408914 0.151304729494 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.010319782661 0.056905535591 18% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.0946893788 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 50.2224549098 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.3001002004 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.69 12.4159519038 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.47 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 78.4519038076 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.