This business article concludes that in order to prosper businesses should hire only such people for whom sleeping for 6 hours per night is enough. To justify this conclusion the article’s author notes that a recent study found an association between the amount of sleep the executives need and the success of the firms they manage; the most profitable and fast-growing firms were operated by the managers who slept less than 6 hours per night. This conclusion rests on a couple of unsubstantiated assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.
First of all, the success of a firm is not always is a result of an executive's work alone, let alone his sleeping routine. The success, in fact, depends on numerous factors, such as employees’ work efficiency, the economic situation in the city and country it operates in, the actions of its competitors, etc. Since the article fails to account for the analysis of the other factors’ influence that might be involved, the article’s author cannot make any sound recommendations to businesses based on the found association between the amount of sleep the executives need and how successful their firms are.
Secondly, a found association does not always mean that it is correct and that it makes sense. One should always assess the meaningfulness of an obtained coefficients and the soundness of the model. As the article does not provide any information about the analysis process and the extent of the association found, we cannot and should not be easily persuaded by it without seeing the actual numbers.
Finally, the article does not provide us with a timeline of the study. The statistics gathered could reflect just one month or one year numbers which do not necessarily represent the whole trend of development existing in the firms. It could be the case that there was an economy was simply burgeoning when the study took place, making the obtained results aberrant, whereas before or after it the numbers representing profit margins and growth were completely the opposite. For this matter, unless the timeline of the study is known, no conclusions can be drawn from it.
In sum, the conclusion is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To bolster it the author must provide clear evidence that the growth of the mentioned companies was the result solely of their executives’ managerial skills, the numbers behind the built model and the timeline of the study.
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 405 350
No. of Characters: 2001 1500
No. of Different Words: 211 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.486 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.941 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.742 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 144 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 105 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 70 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.929 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 17.111 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.336 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.609 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.091 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, whereas, in fact, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => 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: 2077.0 2260.96107784 92% => OK
No of words: 405.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12839506173 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48604634366 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93417496344 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 214.0 204.123752495 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.528395061728 0.468620217663 113% => OK
syllable_count: 638.1 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => 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: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 75.1033066294 57.8364921388 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.466666667 119.503703932 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.0 23.324526521 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.13333333333 5.70786347227 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.258553592424 0.218282227539 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0735547330808 0.0743258471296 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0792042264935 0.0701772020484 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.131217543994 0.128457276422 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0915251662597 0.0628817314937 146% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.3550499002 91% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.