Some think the best way to motivate and encourage people to work hard is to pay them based on how much they produce and sell. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
There is an opinion asserting that the most motivating way to have hard-working employees is paying salary based on their performances in selling or producing. However, I completely disagree with the given statement because it would not be possible or fair in all jobs and circumstances.
Firstly, the workforces' performances in some carrier could not be assessed by how much they produce or sell. Take doctors working in hospitals, for example; they cure sick visitors and follow their well-being and health condition. These services should be evaluated by other criteria like the sick people's satisfaction or doctors' commitment and punctuality. Hence, employees' salary in should be commensurate with their career jobs.
Secondly, in some situations, the concept of equal pay for equal production or sale would be immoral. In other words, some external factors may affect the rate of production or sale, which are beyond the workers' control. A good illustration of this would be unexpected extreme weather conditions, which could damage a farm's products. In such cases paying depended on employees' output, not only is unfair but also discouraging.
Finally, despite some belief, paying the production or selling staff salaries in proportion to their performances would not be the best method to improve individual motivation. That is, in many cases, the managers and executive principals would use other encouraging items such as perks and bonuses. In this respect, if such non-financial incentives come with the jobholders, they prompt to work hard.
In conclusion, in my firm conviction determining the amount of money that employees earn based on how much they produce or sell to have hard-working ones is impossible or unfair in many cases. Instead of it, other motivating items could be even more efficient.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 299, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'peoples'' or 'people's'?
Suggestion: peoples'; people's
...aluated by other criteria like the sick peoples satisfaction or doctors commitment and ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, well, for example, in conclusion, such as, in many cases, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 10.4138276553 154% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 41.998997996 83% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1540.0 1615.20841683 95% => OK
No of words: 286.0 315.596192385 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.38461538462 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11236361783 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9737222649 2.80592935109 106% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 176.041082164 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.601398601399 0.561755894193 107% => OK
syllable_count: 464.4 506.74238477 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.76152304609 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.3319999733 49.4020404114 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.666666667 106.682146367 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0666666667 20.7667163134 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.3333333333 7.06120827912 146% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.267640237407 0.244688304435 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0844073034313 0.084324248473 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0729886787767 0.0667982634062 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.151971959913 0.151304729494 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0516221080865 0.056905535591 91% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.0946893788 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 50.2224549098 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.3001002004 95% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.92 12.4159519038 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.11 8.58950901804 106% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 78.4519038076 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => 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.