Face-to-face communication is better than other types of communications, such as letters, emails, or telephone calls.
Use specific reasons and details to support your answer.
Experts throughout the developing and developed world have debated whether direct communication or its counterparts such as emails and telephones is a better means of conveying ideas among people. Alongside the arguments from both sides, the discoveries from Hong Kong have provided some insights into this controversy. This essay will discuss both views using the examples in business sectors to demonstrate points.
To begin with, one of the most obvious benefits for having a direct communication is precluding both sides from being mislead. The central reason behind this stems from the fact that one can obtain extra supports from the medium other than the speech itself, such as facial expression and sketching on a drawing board. In fact, the majority of project managers in Hong Kong encourage a stand-up meeting in morning to have a face-to-face briefing on status of ongoing progress. Moreover, the ensuing efficiency of having a direction communication has been increasingly recognised around the globe, despite the arguments regarding physical limitation such as distance. Therefore, it is conclusively clear that direct communication is intuitively perceived as a stimulus of business development.
Although there is a case for fostering the productivity under the auspice of face-to-face communication, the upside of utilising communication technology cannot be neglect, in particular the use of email and instant messaging software. This is largely because such technology increases the likeliness of contacting partners who locate in faraway countries, which in turn paves the way for globalisation. For instance, there has been evidently a surge in the deployment of computers and smartphone worldwide since 2000. Consistent with this line of thinking is that electronic means of communication would be the dominant option for those multinational corporations necessitating constant remote interactions among offices dotted worldwide. Thus it is possible to state beyond doubt that the cutting-edge communication technology facilitates the business expansion.
In conclusion, both types of communication, to a considerable extent, are positive drivers for societal development depending on the situation, as a result, they are equally important to underpin the daily operation of a company. Given the prevalence of smartphone and other wearables, it is predicted that the employment of communication technology will grow in importance in the foreseeable future.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-09-02 | RockyGagKy | 89 | view |
| 2018-09-02 | RockyGagKy | 89 | view |
- Many people believe that mobile phones cause more harms than the benefits and that's why mobile phones should be restricted?To what extent do you agree or disagree?Give reasons to support your viewpoint. 84
- The table shows the worldwide market share of mobile phone manufacturers in the years 2005 and 2006 52
- Different cultures are mixing today and the world is becoming a global village. Is it a positive or negative development in your opinion? To what extent do you support this development? 89
- The bar chart shows different methods of waste disposal in four cities: Toronto, Madrid, Kuala Lumpur and Amman. 89
- Do you think that an ageing society will disappear? What are the advantages and disadvantages of having more old people in society? 11
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 741, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...actions among offices dotted worldwide. Thus it is possible to state beyond doubt th...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
moreover, regarding, so, therefore, thus, for instance, in conclusion, in fact, in particular, such as, as a result, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 24.0651302605 71% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 41.998997996 143% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 8.3376753507 276% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2121.0 1615.20841683 131% => OK
No of words: 367.0 315.596192385 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.77929155313 5.12529762239 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37689890912 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.29537420091 2.80592935109 117% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 176.041082164 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.602179836512 0.561755894193 107% => OK
syllable_count: 669.6 506.74238477 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.4564405149 49.4020404114 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.4 106.682146367 133% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.4666666667 20.7667163134 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.66666666667 7.06120827912 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.166590152423 0.244688304435 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0484064295028 0.084324248473 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0415202348759 0.0667982634062 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0893567345785 0.151304729494 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0390140358791 0.056905535591 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.0 13.0946893788 137% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.2 50.2224549098 60% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 7.44779559118 175% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 11.3001002004 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.54 12.4159519038 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.51 8.58950901804 122% => OK
difficult_words: 132.0 78.4519038076 168% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.