The recommendation by the vice president suggests that the employees of Climpson Industries need to be monitored on their internet use. The recommendation needs to be improved by the author since there are some assumptions need to be solved.
First, the author mentioned that those who use the internet should be identified from the workstations and punished. However, it was never mentioned how they would distinguish the internet use for personal use from the work-related use. These days, most of the works in the office is done through internet use. If the internet use for work purpose is also identified and punished, it puts a huge discredit on the monitoring system. The monitoring system which cannot detect the cases only for the punishment, it becomes in effect useless. Thus, the author should provide the monitoring methods which can detect the internet use limited to the personal or recreational purpose.
Second, the author supposes that the reduction of the work hours will reduce the idle time among employees. Nevertheless, the author did not consider other ways that employees use not to work. For instance, the mobile use is exemplary. On mobile phones, they can do mobile games or text message with friends. Without precluding these possibilities, the author's assertion that the work hours spent for work is misleading. Thus, the author should provide enough causation between the reduction of internet use and the increase in time that employees are doing their work.
Lastly, the author presumes that the monitoring would increase the work ethics and increase the profitability of the company as a result. In contrast, the monitoring on employee's individual computer can have a counter effect on work ethics since it is an infringement of privacy. Employees might feel uncomfortable about being monitored on their work. This can make them less loyal to the company. Besides, those who are extremely sensitive about one's privacy can be annoyed and quit the jobs at the company. Therefore, the monitoring of the computer uses seems not desirable to increase the work ethics nor to improve the productivity. Thus, the author should consider how the employees would react to the new policy.
To sum up, the author's recommendation has several assumptions that need to be checked. Without solving those assumptions, the recommendation would remain ill-advised.
- Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people. 55
- The surest indicator of a great nation is represented not by the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but by the general welfare of its people. 58
- Three years ago, because of flooding at the Western Palean Wildlife Preserve, 100 lions and 100 western gazelles were moved to the East Palean Preserve, an area that is home to most of the same species that are found in the western preserve, though in lar 68
- The following appeared in a memo from the marketing director of Bargain Brand Cereals."One year ago we introduced our first product, 'Bargain Brand' breakfast cereal. Our very low prices quickly drew many customers away from the top-selling cereal compani 77
- argument：Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were believed to have been made only by the Palean people. Recently, how 77
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK. how to monitor is a technical issue.
'Employees who use the Internet from their workstations need to be identified and punished if we are to reduce the number of work hours spent on personal or recreational activities, such as shopping or playing games.'
we may argue like: Employees may use their mobile phones for shopping or playing games. it means this approach will not work.
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
flaws:
one argument lost:
in the argument 1, we will need to argue: 'In an effort to improve our employees' productivity, we should implement electronic monitoring of employees' Internet use from their workstations.'
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 381 350
No. of Characters: 1956 1500
No. of Different Words: 180 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.418 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.134 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.811 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 143 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 108 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.565 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 4.68 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.609 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.328 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.543 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.133 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the personal or recreational purpose. Second, the author supposes that the re...
^^^
Line 5, column 355, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...out precluding these possibilities, the authors assertion that the work hours spent for...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 449, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...those who are extremely sensitive about ones privacy can be annoyed and quit the job...
^^^^
Line 9, column 17, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...t to the new policy. To sum up, the authors recommendation has several assumptions ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, first, however, if, lastly, nevertheless, second, so, therefore, thus, for instance, in contrast, as a result, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2016.0 2260.96107784 89% => OK
No of words: 381.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.29133858268 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41805628031 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88639217253 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.475065616798 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 621.0 705.55239521 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 16.0 8.76447105788 183% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 29.4178552573 57.8364921388 51% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 87.652173913 119.503703932 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.5652173913 23.324526521 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.86956521739 5.70786347227 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.18221967144 0.218282227539 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.063960513741 0.0743258471296 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0640034289031 0.0701772020484 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.109408484957 0.128457276422 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0518214088725 0.0628817314937 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.3799401198 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.3550499002 114% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 98.500998004 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.