Nearly 70% of employers blamed inadequate training for the shortfall in skilled workers, yet 70% of education-providers believe they suitably prepare graduates for the jobs market. Similarly, employers complain that less than half of the young whom they hire have adequate problem-solving skills, yet nearly two-thirds of the young believe that they do have such skills.
The following report in the editorial portrays the blame game of the corporate world in which employers blame the education provider and vice-versa. This argument has no conclusion yet its highly debatable. No one can conclude anything by just hearing the allegations put on by each other. One would require strong and logical facts which will justify one's allegation. Though as a student one can incline towards a side based on his past experiences. But this argument is incomplete, lack of logical reasoning, weak statistical data, and hence, subjective to a never ending debate.
Firstly, the report says that 70 % of employers blamed inadequate training for the shortfall of skilled workers and in return 70 % of the education providers think that they do their jobs quite well. The main question that arises is that what is the total sample space of the survey from which 70 % is calculated?, what was the range of that sample space?. Thus, this report itself provide evidences for its non credibilty. Rather, the report should provide the complete data on which the survey has been done. Also, after providing that the field of that particular survey should also be provided so that one can get an idea about the problem which is associated to a particular field. Therefore, without going on the main argument, the report itself is questionable.
Besides, the reports does not provide the information about the source from where these information has been gathered. The reporter should mention the source and also provide remarks by the various pundits of corporate world on it so that one can relate with the argument and rely on the information provided. The above fallacy indicates that the report is somewhat misleading the readers and publishing a negative report of the modern corporate world. This would make a prospective job seeker to disheartened and question his decisions.
Nevertheless, if one can ignore all the fallacies within the report then also, he cannot take a well informed decision about the argument because one do not know who is right and who is wrong in the following argument and whose allegation are true and justifiable.
Summing up the conclusion, its pretty clear that the given report is not clear in itself and incomplete in various fields. Upon a close scrutiny, the argument is highly flawed and demand a much needed re-evaluation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 353, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...ng and logical facts which will justify ones allegation. Though as a student one can...
^^^^
Line 1, column 370, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Though” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...cts which will justify ones allegation. Though as a student one can incline towards a ...
^^^^^^
Line 1, column 434, Rule ID: PAST_EXPERIENCE_MEMORY[1]
Message: Use simply 'experiences'.
Suggestion: experiences
...can incline towards a side based on his past experiences. But this argument is incomplete, lack ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 83, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this information' or 'these informations'?
Suggestion: this information; these informations
...information about the source from where these information has been gathered. The reporter should ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 131, Rule ID: CLOSE_SCRUTINY[1]
Message: Use simply 'scrutiny'.
Suggestion: scrutiny
...nd incomplete in various fields. Upon a close scrutiny, the argument is highly flawed and dema...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'besides', 'but', 'first', 'firstly', 'hence', 'if', 'nevertheless', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'thus', 'well']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.203233256351 0.25644967241 79% => OK
Verbs: 0.154734411085 0.15541462614 100% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0923787528868 0.0836205057962 110% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0600461893764 0.0520304965353 115% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0277136258661 0.0272364105082 102% => OK
Prepositions: 0.120092378753 0.125424944231 96% => OK
Participles: 0.0484988452656 0.0416121511921 117% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.71982873623 2.79052419416 97% => OK
Infinitives: 0.00692840646651 0.026700313972 26% => Some infinitives wanted.
Particles: 0.00230946882217 0.001811407834 127% => OK
Determiners: 0.13856812933 0.113004496875 123% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0277136258661 0.0255425247493 108% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0254041570439 0.0127820249294 199% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2384.0 2731.13054187 87% => OK
No of words: 395.0 446.07635468 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.03544303797 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45809453852 4.57801047555 97% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.374683544304 0.378187486979 99% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.263291139241 0.287650121315 92% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.187341772152 0.208842608468 90% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.13164556962 0.135150697306 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71982873623 2.79052419416 97% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 207.018472906 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.539240506329 0.469332199767 115% => OK
Word variations: 60.8216992899 52.1807786196 117% => OK
How many sentences: 19.0 20.039408867 95% => OK
Sentence length: 20.7894736842 23.2022227129 90% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.1530482418 57.7814097925 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.473684211 141.986410481 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7894736842 23.2022227129 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.684210526316 0.724660767414 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 3.58251231527 140% => OK
Readability: 47.1185876083 51.9672348444 91% => OK
Elegance: 1.53333333333 1.8405768891 83% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.371011340724 0.441005458295 84% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0983868138144 0.135418324435 73% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0943528816278 0.0829849096947 114% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.526849316822 0.58762219726 90% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.223211697404 0.147661913831 151% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.136859139616 0.193483328276 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.141104222359 0.0970749176394 145% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.411465968693 0.42659136922 96% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0947709166278 0.0774707102158 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.221500683221 0.312017818177 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.115721577047 0.0698173142475 166% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.33743842365 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.87684729064 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 1.0 6.46551724138 15% => More positive topic words wanted.
Negative topic words: 10.0 5.36822660099 186% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.82389162562 142% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 14.657635468 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.