In an effort to improve our employees’ productivity, we should implement electronic monitoring of employees’ Internet use from their workstations. Employees who use the internet from their workstations need to be identified and punished if we are to reduce the number of work hours spent on personal or recreational activities, such as shopping or playing games. By installing software to detect employees’ Internet use on company computers, we can prevent employees from wasting time, foster a better work ethic at Climpson, and improve our overall profits.
While the advent of technology apps have been helpful for tracking, monitoring and other productivity engancements, the writer's argument have a couple of holes that do not make it totally valid and agreeable.
The first assumption here is that employees who use the internet from their work station need to be punished. This is very easy to by-pass as internet-enabled recreational devices are not limited to workstations anymore. The employees could fulfil their pass time from their phones or their internet-enabled televisions and not necessarily use the workstations. This way, the goal of the writer would not be achieved. A better solution would be to track the employees' work output with tools like JIRA, Notion, etc. This way, work is focused on their productivity and not on what they choose to do in their spare time or when they are done with their assigned tasks.
Secondly, the writer assumes that his/her above suggestions would foster a better work ethic. One can strongly argue that work ethic is usually fostered better when the company has a clear goal and vision that the employees both buy into and are given the right tools and resources to achieve. Tracking employees' work hours and punishing them might again not be sufficient for fostering work ethics. Work ethics can be fostered better, for instance, by having physical meetups, assigning each lower cadre employee to a senior mentor, reiterating the company goals, amongst others. The writer makes no mention of such activities or data around that - and except the writer does, the argument is flawed.
Furthermore, the writer assumes that the overall profit at Climpson is directly related to the employees' internet use. This does not hold water because there is no data or information on what kind of product that Climpson creates or sells. What if the problem from Climpson having an obsolete or no-market friendly product? What if the only employees that work from home are the customer repreentatives who are there to only receive and give product feedback. This is in no way directly linked to the overall profit of the company and so, except the writer gives more insight to what products Climpson sells or data that ties employees' productivity directly to profits from past years, then, this argument isn't cogent.
In conclusion, more data needs to be provided by the writer in order to make a better case for the comapny to invest in internet monitoring devices. Other avenues for increasing productivity and fostering work ethics should be explored before making a decision that might end up not solving Climpson's employees and profit issues.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 13 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 435 350
No. of Characters: 2156 1500
No. of Different Words: 220 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.567 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.956 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.633 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 154 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 111 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 77 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.167 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.907 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.556 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.33 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.56 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.112 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 121, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...nd other productivity engancements, the writers argument have a couple of holes that do...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 96, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'employees'' or 'employee's'?
Suggestion: employees'; employee's
... at Climpson is directly related to the employees internet use. This does not hold water ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 707, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...ts from past years, then, this argument isnt cogent. In conclusion, more data nee...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, if, second, secondly, so, then, while, for instance, in conclusion, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 11.1786427146 179% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2208.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 433.0 441.139720559 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09930715935 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56165014514 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68846520236 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 204.123752495 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.512702078522 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 672.3 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.2641623037 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.210526316 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7894736842 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.70786347227 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.301480335385 0.218282227539 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.104177261818 0.0743258471296 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0951303725209 0.0701772020484 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.154744804864 0.128457276422 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.110442552092 0.0628817314937 176% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.6 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 98.500998004 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.