Do you agree or disagree: “In today’s world, it is more important to work quickly and risk making mistakes than to work slowly and make sure that everything is correct.”?
From a broad perspective, in the current state of affairs we face, in which competition become an integral part of every single relationships, it is not far-fetched to presume that speed and accuracy are represented as crucial indicators for successful people. However, which of these two factors play more influential role is considered as a contentious issue. There is a growing segment of people who contend that speed can compensate the unfavorable ramifications affected the precision of the work. I personally repudiate with this idea. In the ensuing paragraph, the rationale behind this statement will be further elaborated.
First and foremost, today's job is result-oriented. There is no denying to the fact that employers in modern societies do not render specific approach to their staff. It means that they just want to reach their desired target no matter what procedure they pursue. Therefore, the only action that the personnel should do is determine which steps they are going to take in order to achieve to that goal in the given time. For instance take two coworkers as an example, one of whom may opt to choose the regular way while another one probably will not pass up her chance to give a try of different method. The vital point is they allocate sufficient time according to the workload in order to obtain the intended result in that particular time. Undoubtedly, any mistake which leads to the unsatisfactory outcome will not be acceptable regardless of the source of it.
Another vital point which should be taken into consideration is that close relationships between the experience and making a mistake. It goes without saying the more quick people work, the more plausible to make a mistake, and that is why people should not overlook the role of experience in this regard. Indeed, if the inept people rise their speed, it is like this that they want to sit on a two-ledge stool, thus it would be sensible decision to not aggravate the circumstances for themselves. Furthermore, by passing the time, adept people learn how to hinder committing the major errors. According to the latest research attributing to Dr. Kevin Rudd, a prominent and highly respected professor in Department of Sociology at the Macquarie University, the probability of spotting the particular error is decreased by 20% in the first three years and 60% by the first five years. This probe provides further legitimacy for the idea that despite the general perspective that says: "haste makes waste!" experience enable individuals to complete a task speedily as precise as possible.
TO wrap it up, it is more judicious to say that it is not worthy to merely deliver an assigned task quickly without paying attention to the possible errors. Not only does not this approach meet the current companies' requirement in term of fulfilling the defined aims, but also it leads to irrecoverable damages arising from the serious mistakes.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 206, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'companies'' or 'company's'?
Suggestion: companies'; company's
...does not this approach meet the current companies requirement in term of fulfilling the d...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, look, may, so, therefore, thus, while, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 15.1003584229 126% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 9.8082437276 92% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 13.8261648746 51% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 20.0 11.0286738351 181% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 43.0788530466 97% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 52.1666666667 127% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.0752688172 136% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2461.0 1977.66487455 124% => OK
No of words: 484.0 407.700716846 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0847107438 4.8611393121 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69041575982 4.48103885553 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90438184203 2.67179642975 109% => OK
Unique words: 280.0 212.727598566 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.578512396694 0.524837075471 110% => OK
syllable_count: 775.8 618.680645161 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 9.59856630824 73% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.994623655914 0% => OK
Article: 6.0 3.08781362007 194% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.94265232975 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6003584229 97% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.1344086022 119% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.010704721 48.9658058833 127% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.05 100.406767564 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.2 20.6045352989 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.75 5.45110844103 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 11.8709677419 67% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.85842293907 181% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.88709677419 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.115245994721 0.236089414692 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0292181241274 0.076458572812 38% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0451700682447 0.0737576698707 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0576262377822 0.150856017488 38% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0470123784468 0.0645574589148 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 11.7677419355 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 58.1214874552 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 10.1575268817 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.48 10.9000537634 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.43 8.01818996416 118% => OK
difficult_words: 141.0 86.8835125448 162% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.002688172 120% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.0537634409 115% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 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: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.