All too often, companies hire outside consultants to suggest ways for the company to operate more efficiently. If companies were to spend more time listening to their own employees, such consultants would be unnecessary.
The given statement suggests that hiring consultants from outside the company is redundant, it would be more efficient to listen to the employees in the organization. I agree with some parts of the statement and disgree with some other parts to some extent. As expressed in the statement, listening to the employees may indeed be better that hiring outside consultants in many cases, as the employees would have better insight on the company and could better addres their own problems. On the other hand though, an outside consultant can provide an insight from the outsite, without being affected by the biases inside the company.
Let me give you an example scenario. On a company, someone in a high position is abusing his power and is pressuring the employees under him to stay quiet. Someone noticed the discrepencies in the works and decided to ask the employees in the company and listen to them to locate the issue. What do you think will happen? the employees here are suppressed, they will not talk bad about their superior in fear of retaliation. Maybe the one abusing the power would get alarted by the activities to find the problems and become more careful, but the issue at hand will not be solved entirely. In the same scenario, if an outside consultant was hired, he could work without fear and pressure, meticulously screening all the details to pinpoint the real issue.
On another scenario, lets suppose in a company, the employees were facing problems with the tools and the production environment, resulting in a decrease in production. The employees has been complaining to the hinger-ups of the issues, but when they noticed that the higher-ups do not listen to them properly, they stopped wasting their breath. When production decreased dramatically, the higher-ups became concerned and decided to hire an outside consultant to find the issues. The consultant, being unfamiliar with the environment of the company, had a hard time pinpointing the issue, but lets say he found it and reported back. The hinger-ups had to pay him an subtential amount of money for the job. In this case, hiring the outside consultant was indeed a waste. The issue could have been handled much earlier and more efficiently if only the company listened to the employees.
As seen in the examples scenarios, the issue depends vastly on the situation of the company, the type of problem that is being addressed and a lot more. It is not possible to be fixed on one opinion, in some cases, hiring outside consultants is the more practical choice, in others, listening to the employees is the better one. In my opinion, a mixture of the two, depending on the situation and need, is the best choice. The companyies should always listen to their employees and hire outside consultants in the issue at hand requires it.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 323, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...e issue. What do you think will happen? the employees here are suppressed, they wil...
^^^
Line 9, column 184, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[1]
Message: You should probably use 'have', 'haven'.
Suggestion: have; haven
...a decrease in production. The employees has been complaining to the hinger-ups of t...
^^^
Line 9, column 594, Rule ID: LETS_LET[1]
Message: Did you mean 'Let's'?
Suggestion: Let's
... a hard time pinpointing the issue, but lets say he found it and reported back. The ...
^^^^
Line 9, column 664, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...ted back. The hinger-ups had to pay him an subtential amount of money for the job....
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, may, so, in many cases, in my opinion, in some cases, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.3162921348 53% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 33.0505617978 85% => OK
Preposition: 74.0 58.6224719101 126% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2355.0 2235.4752809 105% => OK
No of words: 477.0 442.535393258 108% => OK
Chars per words: 4.93710691824 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67336384929 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73082021733 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 220.0 215.323595506 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.461215932914 0.4932671777 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 721.8 704.065955056 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 13.0 4.99550561798 260% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.0008608738 60.3974514979 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.045454545 118.986275619 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6818181818 23.4991977007 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.63636363636 5.21951772744 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.304563977319 0.243740707755 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0862878738447 0.0831039109588 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.090453012321 0.0758088955206 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.190419185402 0.150359130593 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0563362202823 0.0667264976115 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.1392134831 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.8420337079 120% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.37 12.1639044944 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.69 8.38706741573 92% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 100.480337079 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.8971910112 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.