. The vice president for human resources at Climpson Industries sent the following recommendation to the company's president.
"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 inappropriately 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. Installing software on company computers to detect employees' Internet use is the best way to prevent employees from wasting time on the job. It will foster a better work ethic at Climpson and improve our overall profits."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The vice president of Climpson Industries according to some clueless assumptions purposes that by observation and punishment of employees who use the internet can privilege a work ethic and improve the profit of the company. All of these hypotheses are shaky and require more evidence to get a logic status. In what follows, I will list missing evidence which cast doubt on the accuracy of this proposal.
The first illogical surmise is about the link between the employee's productivity and internet usage. According to the president, the use of internet declines workers' productivity. However, there is no cogent support for this surmise. Indeed, there is a list of factors which possess a more crucial effect on the level of productivity. For instance, the cooperative interaction among the employees who work in a group. It is obvious that in any teamwork there should be a concrete connection among members until the achievement to the desired goal gets easier and faster. In this case, if workers at the Climpson company have been working on a specific project which requires team accomplishment, and team members prefer to have a connection through the internet, for the sake of its easy to use and quickness; would the prohibition of internet use enhance the workers' productivity? Of course, it would not.
Another problem of the proposal is related to the assumption the monitoring and forbidding the internet use in the working station, would decrease the wasted hours by the employees. It is unconvincing since it lacks adhesive reasons. Although time consumed for the personal task can be listed as wasted time in a working office, there is no warranty that the prohibition of internet use by the system of the company will abet this wasted period. For example, there is the possibility that a worker whose station net access has been blocked by the company, uses his cellphone and its internet for his amusement or personal activities. Or another forgotten evidence which makes this hypothesis to be skeptical is the convenience provided by the internet use which even can increase the allocated time for the occupation. As an example, a worker can use the internet for his personal issue such as online bill payment. While this task can be done in a few minutes through the internet, by this ban, that person has to take hours off the office to handle it through banks. Therefore, neither the prevention of internet use reduces the wasted time, nor its usage causes to wasting the working hours.
Finally, the last issue with this prompt is related to the faint conclusion which purposed this plan will boost the industry's profit. Actually, there is no clue to give adherence to this result; besides, other factors such as the working condition has a more effective role in this issue. In other words, while a worker is satisfied with his working condition, he is more eager to work harder. If this observation and ban of internet usage have disturbed the employees and they would not be appeal with this situation, their performance will be affected negatively, and the company loses lots of profit. Consequently, the company should not expect that this plan can increase the company's financial benefits since there is no strong evidence to support this fact.
To wrap it up, all the aforementioned points explicitly depict the shakiness of this proposal. It should provide convincing clues about the relationship between the productivity level and internet use, internet use is the reason for wasting time. In addition, the profit of the company is correlated to internet usage.
- Claim: Nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed.Reason: It is inappropriate — and, perhaps, even cruel — to use public resources to fund the arts when people's basi 58
- It is important for the government to spend money on art and concert halls than on the recreational facilities such as the swimming pools or playground. 76
- The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Quiot Manufacturing."During the past year, had 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than at the nearby Panoply Industries plant, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. Experts say th 29
- tpo 32.1 70
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement To remain happy and optimistic when you fail is more important than achieving success 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 59, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'employees'' or 'employee's'?
Suggestion: employees'; employee's
...l surmise is about the link between the employees productivity and internet usage. Accord...
Line 3, column 861, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'workers'' or 'worker's'?
Suggestion: workers'; worker's
...prohibition of internet use enhance the workers productivity? Of course, it would not. ...
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, besides, consequently, finally, first, however, if, so, therefore, while, as to, for example, for instance, in addition, of course, such as, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 28.8173652695 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 74.0 55.5748502994 133% => OK
Nominalization: 30.0 16.3942115768 183% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3007.0 2260.96107784 133% => OK
No of words: 595.0 441.139720559 135% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05378151261 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.93888872473 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77362358357 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 271.0 204.123752495 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.455462184874 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 958.5 705.55239521 136% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.6107797377 57.8364921388 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.37037037 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.037037037 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.11111111111 5.70786347227 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.0916125626411 0.218282227539 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0303664968759 0.0743258471296 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0318497929664 0.0701772020484 45% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0633946494819 0.128457276422 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.028286642912 0.0628817314937 45% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.3799401198 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.01 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.73 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 151.0 98.500998004 153% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.
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: 27 15
No. of Words: 595 350
No. of Characters: 2940 1500
No. of Different Words: 264 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.939 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.941 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.69 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 218 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 177 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 117 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 67 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.037 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.323 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.556 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.278 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.459 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.058 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5