The following appeared in the editorial section of a corporate newsletter.
The common notion that workers are generally apathetic about management issues is false, or at least outdated: a recently published survey indicates that 79 percent of the nearly 1,200 workers who responded to survey questionnaires expressed a high level of interest in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs.
The argument questions a commonly held notion that workers are generally apathetic about management issues on the basis of a survey conducted in which a significant number of workers expressed their interests in certain management issues. Stated this way, the argument conspicuously lacks rigour for several reasons; It manipulates the facts and provides a distorted view of the situation; It fails to consider several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated; and It reveals the examples of leap of faith.
Firstly, the argument draws its conclusions from a single survey which included a mere 1200 workers. The conclusion is a stretch as there are millions of workers around the world and hence, drawing a generic conclusion based on such a small sample size would be misleading. At least, the argument needs to provide some information that can validate the credibility of the survey. The information related to different industries, countries, and economies from which these workers are, can definitely help us understand if the sample is biased. The author also needs to clarify his reasoning in stating that the survey responses are reflective of generic notions of the workers.
Secondly, even if the survey responses are reflective of generic notions of the workers, interest in two of the management issues, doesn’t necessarily imply interest in management issues in general. The workers might be interested in those specific topics because of personal reasons. For example, a worker might be interested in redesigning the benefits program because he is not happy with the current one. Without establishing a clear correlation between interest in two topics and interest in management issues in general, this argument remains rather a leap of faith.
Finally, the arguments provides no information related to: why there is a common notion that workers are apathetic to management issues in the first place?; Is there substantive evidence that the sample size is adequate and unbiased to draw such a generic conclusion?; And, are there any other factors that could influence the response of the workers other than the interest in management issues? Without convincing answers to these questions, the argument remains rather wishful thinking than sensible argument.
In sum, the argument is flawed for the aforementioned reasons and therefore, unconvincing. The argument can be significantly strengthened if the author provides relevant facts to establish the credibility of the survey and a correlation between the responses and the conclusion.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-04 | Lokesh1998 | 60 | view |
| 2022-08-04 | Lokesh1998 | 66 | view |
- The following appeared in an article in a health and fitness magazine Laboratory studies show that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains several of the minerals necessary for good health and that it is completely free of bacteria Residents of Saluda the sm
- We have learned from an employee of Windfall Ltd that its accounting department by checking about 10 percent of the last month s purchasing invoices for errors and inconsistencies saved the company some 10 000 in overpayments In order to help our clients
- The following appeared in the editorial section of a corporate newsletter The common notion that workers are generally apathetic about management issues is false or at least outdated a recently published survey indicates that 79 percent of the nearly 1 20 60
- The following appeared in the editorial section of a corporate newsletter The common notion that workers are generally apathetic about management issues is false or at least outdated a recently published survey indicates that 79 percent of the nearly 1 20 66
- We have learned from an employee of Windfall Ltd that its accounting department by checking about 10 percent of the last month s purchasing invoices for errors and inconsistencies saved the company some 10 000 in overpayments In order to help our clients 63
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, hence, if, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, at least, for example, in general, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2181.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 402.0 441.139720559 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.42537313433 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.47771567384 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95876987953 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.485074626866 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 684.9 705.55239521 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 81.2927767736 57.8364921388 141% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.4 119.503703932 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.8 23.324526521 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.93333333333 5.70786347227 157% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.173888702648 0.218282227539 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0631336706801 0.0743258471296 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.071214478953 0.0701772020484 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0993737389041 0.128457276422 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0460192261076 0.0628817314937 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.5 14.3799401198 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 48.3550499002 76% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.197005988 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.51 12.5979740519 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.09 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 98.500998004 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.5 12.3882235529 157% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, hence, if, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, at least, for example, in general, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2181.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 402.0 441.139720559 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.42537313433 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.47771567384 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95876987953 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.485074626866 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 684.9 705.55239521 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 81.2927767736 57.8364921388 141% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.4 119.503703932 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.8 23.324526521 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.93333333333 5.70786347227 157% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.173888702648 0.218282227539 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0631336706801 0.0743258471296 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.071214478953 0.0701772020484 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0993737389041 0.128457276422 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0460192261076 0.0628817314937 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.5 14.3799401198 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 48.3550499002 76% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.197005988 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.51 12.5979740519 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.09 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 98.500998004 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.5 12.3882235529 157% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.