In an effort to improve our employees' productivity, we should implement electronic monitoring of employees' Internet use from their workstations. 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. By installing software to detect employees' Internet use on company computers, we can prevent employees from wasting time, foster a better work ethic at Climpson, and improve our overall profits
In the recommendation sent by the human resources of Climpson Industries to their company’s president, it is stated that monitoring employees’ internet use from their workstation to make them reduce the work hours spent on personal and recreational activities will help improve employees’ productivity and in turn the overall company profits. However, before this recommendation can be properly evaluated, three unstated assumptions need to be considered.
To begin with, the human resources assume that employees are browsing the personal stuff only in their workstations. It might be possible that employees use their personal devices to browse the internet. Further, they might also use the common workplaces to browse the internet rather than using their allocated work stations. If either of these scenarios has merit, then conclusion drawn in the original recommendation is significantly weakened.
In the second place, It is assumed that employees are not wasting work hours in any other ways. In other words, human resources think that employees are wasting time only in form of personal browsing at work station. However, this might not be the case. Perhaps, employees may involve more in chit chat with their co-employees there by wasting work hours. Further, they might spend more time in cafeteria, game rooms. If the above is true, then the recommendation doesn’t hold water.
To continue with, human resources link the overall company profits directly to the employees’ productivity and work ethics. It might be possible that even though the employees are productive and ethical, the company business strategies might not be effective that could lead to less profits. Additionally, the concern market related to the company probably could be low at that moment which possibly result in less profits. If any of the aforementioned reasons holds good, then the prompts assertion could be severely weakened.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the human resources are able to defend the three assumptions mentioned above with more evidence (perhaps in the form of a systematic research study), then it will be possible to fully evaluate the viability of the proposed recommendation to implement electronic monitoring of employees' Internet usage.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-12-26 | drashti05 | 50 | view |
| 2022-10-24 | mr_nud0 | 72 | view |
| 2021-09-16 | Harshitha2623 | 54 | view |
| 2021-08-15 | sameep21 | 58 | view |
| 2021-07-14 | bhupathitharun | 57 | view |
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate 75
- Governments should invest as much in the arts as they do in the military 54
- Mass media and the internet have caused people s attention spans to get shorter However the overall effect has been positive while people are less able to focus on one thing they more than make up for it with an enhanced ability to sort through large quan 62
- We learn our most valuable lessons in life from struggling with our limitations rather than from enjoying our successes 66
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government industry or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation not competition 66
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 365 350
No. of Characters: 1937 1500
No. of Different Words: 184 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.371 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.307 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.898 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 137 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 119 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 89 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.278 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.024 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.318 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.318 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.075 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 279, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun profits is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...ght not be effective that could lead to less profits. Additionally, the concern mark...
^^^^
Line 5, column 411, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun profits is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...at that moment which possibly result in less profits. If any of the aforementioned r...
^^^^
Line 5, column 483, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'prompts'' or 'prompt's'?
Suggestion: prompts'; prompt's
...ementioned reasons holds good, then the prompts assertion could be severely weakened. ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, may, second, so, then, in conclusion, in other words, to begin with, in the second place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2007.0 2260.96107784 89% => OK
No of words: 364.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.51373626374 5.12650576532 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.36792674256 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01944449243 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.510989010989 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 607.5 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 75.1402803322 57.8364921388 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.5 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2222222222 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.94444444444 5.70786347227 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.306395508432 0.218282227539 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0932063342009 0.0743258471296 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0961853473755 0.0701772020484 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.180932190834 0.128457276422 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0863074856724 0.0628817314937 137% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.68 12.5979740519 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 98.500998004 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.