The vice president of the Climpson Industries suggests that the internet use of the employees should be monitored since their personal use of it reduces the productivity of the company. However, the argument is unpersuasive as it is based on several questionable assumptions.
First, the author assumes that the hours spent on the internet reduces the productivity. However, is it necessarily the cause and the only cause? It is possible that the time spent on the internet is beneficial to refresh their minds and increase the work efficiency. In addition, there can be other factors that affect the work efficiency of the employees. For instance, due to the lack of strong leadership in the office, employees feel less motivated to work hard. Or, the machinery in the office is broken that they are not working hard for the moment. Likewise, there can be many other reasons which damage the productivity of the employees. Thus, the author should examine other possible reasons for the low productivity.
Second, if the productivity is low due to the hours spent on the internet, it is unplausible that the monitoring on the internet could solve the problem since there can be other sources for the internet. Instead, employees might bring their own computers or use the mobile phones to do shopping or games. If so, the electronic monitoring only on the computers from the workstations might not reduce the time they spend for personal reasons. Therefore, the author should take into account for the other possible ways to the internet to strengthen the argument.
Lastly, even if the electronic monitoring well controlls the internet uses, it might not increase the productivity. Perhaps, employees would find out other ways to stay away from the work. Instead of surfing online, they may look at the monitor without focusing, or take coffee breaks more often. Even some employees, who feel uncomfortable about being monitored, become less loyal to the company. Thus, the author should provide information related to the other ways to spend work hours for not work-related matters.
To sum up, the author needs to answer aforementioned questions to improve the argument. If not, the suggestion might remain ill-advised for the productivity of the company.
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: Second, if the productivity is low due to the hours spent on the internet, it is unplausible that the monitoring on the internet could solve the problem since there can be other sources for the internet.
Error: unplausible Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: Lastly, even if the electronic monitoring well controlls the internet uses, it might not increase the productivity.
Error: controlls Suggestion: No alternate word
-----------------
argument 1 -- not to say:
First, the author assumes that the hours spent on the internet reduces the productivity.
better to say:
First, the author assumes that monitoring of employees' Internet use can improve our employees' productivity.
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not OK. Need to argue:
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
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 368 350
No. of Characters: 1842 1500
No. of Different Words: 166 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.38 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.005 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.742 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 128 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 101 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 72 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 47 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.524 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.917 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.714 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.322 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.508 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.051 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Hello, thanks for the
Hello, thanks for the feedback.
I don't understand what you wrote about the argue 3.
'argument 3 -- not OK. Need to argue:
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'
My third arguement is on the same line with your suggestion since it points that the monitoring would not lead to the increased time spent on work, which can be seen as a trivial impact on better work ethic at Climpson.
Your answer will be of big help. Thanks!
The structure of the prompt
The structure of the prompt is like this:
condition 1:
In an effort to improve our employees' productivity, we should implement electronic monitoring of employees' Internet use from their workstations.
condition 2:
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.
conclusion:
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.
------------------
Look at your argument 1 and argument 3, they are pretty similar:
First, the author assumes that the hours spent on the internet reduces the productivity.
Lastly, even if the electronic monitoring well controls the internet uses, it might not increase the productivity.
-------------------
in the argument 3, we need to argue it can't prevent employees from
(a). wasting time,
(b). foster a better work ethic at Climpson,
(c). and improve our overall profits
while we can't find (a), (b), (c) in your argument 3. We need to argue them one by one.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 196, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he productivity of the company. However, the argument is unpersuasive as it is ba...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, lastly, likewise, look, may, second, so, then, therefore, thus, well, even so, for instance, in addition, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 55.5748502994 76% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1905.0 2260.96107784 84% => OK
No of words: 368.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.17663043478 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37987740619 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84136625253 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.472826086957 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 585.9 705.55239521 83% => 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: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.6983416698 57.8364921388 58% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 90.7142857143 119.503703932 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5238095238 23.324526521 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.42857142857 5.70786347227 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.148040998139 0.218282227539 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0461381837194 0.0743258471296 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0567660268187 0.0701772020484 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0988439041461 0.128457276422 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0650463461889 0.0628817314937 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.91 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 98.500998004 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.