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.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with these statements and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statements might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
Right off the bat, the statement discards the idea of taking into account external factors. As one can analyse, going by an old adage," leaving up to the professionals", this certainly makes a strong case for the need of consultants. Just like any other job that may have requisites, consultants are as well trained and have sought experience in such matters. It is understandable that need to operate more efficiently would definitely involve employees of the department in question, however that doesn't limit it to be just them.
An employee hired specialises in their domain, having studied and worked for years, learning from both success and failures. In no way that is being undermined by a consultant. Looking just at the face value, from the prerogative of the employee, it may seem to some extent insulting. It is understandable to see where the employee is coming from, however as previously mentioned and reiterating here, consultants are professionals expertising in this field. Besides, this can also be argued from the point of view of free market, which takes a de facto assumption that sustaining of any business is directly linked to its need in the market. The prevalence of large amount of business consulting firms, reaffirms the fact that this idea is thriving and is not riding on the tail end of survival.
Harping on from the same argument of free market, which advocates for self-regulation, it seems ironical much. In Economics, the theory of production very clearly outlines the objective that being, profit maximisation beyond any other. So, even if we do a cost benefit analysis, it is reasonable to assume that companies have taken into account such considerations and after careful contemplation have moved towards the mentioned idea. Hiring a consultant is obviously expensive and the alternative suggested definitely cuts down this cost to zero. The preference of former to later is again flabbergasting. It is rightly so, if we are looking only at surface level of things.
The philosophy that I would concur with most is that employees of such departments or domains are thorough with the nitty gritty and their presence and opinions should hold high value and should be involved while the consultants assess and come up with ways to better operate and improve efficiency.
- 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 Write a response in which you discuss 50
- Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas where the disease is detected However since there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations we cannot permit i 60
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 134, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...s one can analyse, going by an old adage,' leaving up to the professionals',...
^^^^^^
Line 1, column 509, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...he department in question, however that doesnt limit it to be just them. An employ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, however, if, look, may, so, well, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 33.0505617978 88% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 58.6224719101 94% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1948.0 2235.4752809 87% => OK
No of words: 379.0 442.535393258 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.13984168865 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41224685777 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05644552028 2.79657885939 109% => OK
Unique words: 226.0 215.323595506 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.596306068602 0.4932671777 121% => OK
syllable_count: 605.7 704.065955056 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.5282589304 60.3974514979 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.588235294 118.986275619 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2941176471 23.4991977007 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.17647058824 5.21951772744 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.195305687514 0.243740707755 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0501014607731 0.0831039109588 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0449134733301 0.0758088955206 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.108271289264 0.150359130593 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00943535664459 0.0667264976115 14% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.83 12.1639044944 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.1 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 100.480337079 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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: 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.