The following appeared in a newspaper article about law firms in the city of Megalopolis. "In Megalopolis, the number of law school graduates who went to work for large, corporate firms declined by 15 percent over the last three years, whereas an increasing number of graduates took jobs at small, general practice firms. Even though large firms usually offer much higher salaries, law school graduates are choosing to work for the smaller firms most likely because they experience greater job satisfaction at smaller firms. In a survey of first-year students at a leading law school, most agreed with the statement that earning a high salary was less important to them than job satisfaction. This finding suggests that the large, corporate firms of Megalopolis will need to offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work."
In this letter, the author addresses a problem regarding a decline in the number of applicants for large law firms and proposes some reasons and corresponding solutions. According to the author, fewer university graduates tend to work in large companies and most of them prefer to work in smaller agencies. This is because these youngsters seek job satisfaction, which could be achieved by working in a small firm. She or he sets her or his assumption based on first-year students’ assertion about the prominence of job satisfaction over the high salaries. However, the author’s suggestion is wanting in several aspects.
First of all, the author maintains that recent graduates choose to work for smaller companies, even though they are offered the opportunity of holding a job in a reputable corporation. This could be a controversial supposition. Since prestigious enterprises establish high requirements to recruit new employees, it would be immensely arduous to be eligible to work in such firms. High requirements including a professional degree from a high-ranked university, significantly high GPA, a solid background of experience and so forth are a couple of these requirements. Thus, it is likely that the celebrated institutions are not employing the new graduates rather than the young applicants are not sending applications to them.
Secondly, according to the author, job satisfaction is an intrinsic feature of working in a small office. This conjecture could be challenged profoundly. Due to the fact that renowned corporations are full of outstanding projects and professional teams, it is likely to be able to provide young workers with higher responsibilities, which require more productivity and competency. Thus, being offered high level roles and vast areas of being influential, ambitious young people will feel more satisfied and self-gratitude in their workplaces. Therefore, the author sets her or his declaration based on a quivering premise.
Thirdly, to support her or his attitude towards the higher significance of job satisfaction compared to high salaries, the author takes advantage of the postulation of the first-year law students. It is extremely substantial that there is a deep difference between freshmen and seniors. First-year students are in their first steps towards their goals. Hence, they could have a less mature outlook towards their professional lives due to their optimism and altruism. Their assertion could hardly be a representative of their senior counterparts in the sense of job finding process.
In conclusion, although the authors’ supposition might seem flawless at first glance, it lacks the answer to noteworthy questions. If the author provides the readers with extra sufficient information about the stringent requirements of the large firms, the results of a questionnaire about the job satisfaction in small and large companies with related criteria and so forth, it could be more effortless to find the true reason and the corresponding solution. Otherwise, the author did not consider a couple of effective elements in his or her conclusion.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 601, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
.... However, the author's suggestion is wanting in several aspects. First of all, the...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, hence, however, if, look, regarding, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, thus, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 37.0 28.8173652695 128% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2653.0 2260.96107784 117% => OK
No of words: 482.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.50414937759 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68556276237 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.30418210139 2.78398813304 119% => OK
Unique words: 254.0 204.123752495 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.526970954357 0.468620217663 112% => OK
syllable_count: 800.1 705.55239521 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 4.96107784431 242% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.3259041177 57.8364921388 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.347826087 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9565217391 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.47826086957 5.70786347227 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0821312824737 0.218282227539 38% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0242294256225 0.0743258471296 33% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0362592954756 0.0701772020484 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0498684016223 0.128457276422 39% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0490642451633 0.0628817314937 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.62 12.5979740519 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.44 8.32208582834 113% => OK
difficult_words: 147.0 98.500998004 149% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.