On this year’s survey about work habits, our employees tended to strongly agree with the
idea that if they took less time to complete their assigned work, the quality of their work
would suffer. However, we recently conducted an internal study that proves this idea
wrong. Managers across several divisions identified an overtime group: the employees
who worked an average of 48 or more hours per week over the past year instead of the
expected 40 hours per week. We then looked at the number of documented work errors
produced by all of our employees during the past year and found that the overtime group
was responsible for significantly more work errors overall than their fellow employees. On
the basis of these findings, our recommendation to the company president is to require
employees to complete their work during the regular 40-hour work week and allow
overtime only for urgent circumstances.
The Human Resources director suggests his company to require workers to complete their assignments during their normal 40-hour work week and to expect them to make use of overtime only for urgent occurrences. This is a recommendation is derived from a reasoning chain that, unfortunately, shows a considerable amount of flaws, thus strongly weakening the compelling power of the argument. In particular, some questions are to be answered in order to prove the consistency of some consideration: for instance, no real conlusion can be assigned to the argument if no info is given about the surveyed divisions, just as more data are requested to get a clearer image of the importance of the work errors identified in the overtime group. Moreover, it is unavoidable to need some explainations about what happened during the considered and surveyed year.
To begin with, numbers. There are some holes, an opaque use of some counting expression that contribute to make the data used to back up the argument more immaterial. It is probably to be deemed correct that the most crucial superficiality is in the word "several": what are the several considered divisions? What is their number? In fact, they could be so irrelevant as to make no concrete sense in the aims of the argument. Say, for example, that the divisions are just a couple over twenty disparate divisions: what would be the mean of analysing this unrepresentitive number of areas? Aligning to the same flaw, it is not lucid at all the quantity of workers that are part of the overtime group. How many are them? If they are a discrete and low number, they should not be considered at all to strengthen the argument.
Similar to this number error is a sort of "quality defining" mistake. In fact, we are given no clues about the kind of errors made by the overtime group (just as we do not know the specific number of the same errors). Hence, the argument could be not uncontrovertible at all if, for example, the kind of errors are not influent to the overall work or if the cited "high number" of this errors is nothing compared to the hypotetically tragic mistakes made by the normal time workers. In other words, we know that the overtime group made more errors, but we need to deepen the question by gathering more information as to qualify these errors and really assess their role in the argument.
An other point that seems not ininfluent is the substantial lack of description of the circumstances under which the survay has been made. As a matter of fact, if some evident changes or events have occurred during the year, the survey would not be thst interesting to evaluate the strenght of the argument. For example, some new and unexperienced fledgling could have just been employed in the company, or some new sort of product have been introduced to the internal production process. In other words, what happend in the last year? As it is evident, the Human Resources director could have done a cogent work with this argument, but we really need to know something more about numbers, quality of errors and recent events. Some of this info, as above maintained, could seriously prove this argument wrong.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: In particular, some questions are to be answered in order to prove the consistency of some consideration: for instance, no real conlusion can be assigned to the argument if no info is given about the surveyed divisions, just as more data are requested to get a clearer image of the importance of the work errors identified in the overtime group.
Error: conlusion Suggestion: confusion
Sentence: Moreover, it is unavoidable to need some explainations about what happened during the considered and surveyed year.
Error: explainations Suggestion: explanations
Sentence: Say, for example, that the divisions are just a couple over twenty disparate divisions: what would be the mean of analysing this unrepresentitive number of areas?
Error: unrepresentitive Suggestion: No alternate word
Error: analysing Suggestion: analyzing
Sentence: Hence, the argument could be not uncontrovertible at all if, for example, the kind of errors are not influent to the overall work or if the cited 'high number' of this errors is nothing compared to the hypotetically tragic mistakes made by the normal time workers.
Error: uncontrovertible Suggestion: No alternate word
Error: influent Suggestion: No alternate word
Error: hypotetically Suggestion: hypothetically
Sentence: An other point that seems not ininfluent is the substantial lack of description of the circumstances under which the survay has been made.
Error: survay Suggestion: survey
Error: ininfluent Suggestion: influence
Sentence: As a matter of fact, if some evident changes or events have occurred during the year, the survey would not be thst interesting to evaluate the strenght of the argument.
Error: thst Suggestion: test
Error: strenght Suggestion: strength
Sentence: For example, some new and unexperienced fledgling could have just been employed in the company, or some new sort of product have been introduced to the internal production process.
Error: unexperienced Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: In other words, what happend in the last year?
Error: happend Suggestion: No alternate word
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 15 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 544 350
No. of Characters: 2563 1500
No. of Different Words: 242 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.829 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.711 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.71 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 166 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 127 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 96 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.652 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.17 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.652 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.284 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.442 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.085 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 400, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...if the cited 'high number' of this errors is nothing compared to the hypot...
^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: AN_OTHER[1]
Message: Did you mean 'another'? This word sequence is usually spelled together.
Suggestion: Another
...y assess their role in the argument. An other point that seems not ininfluent is the ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, hence, if, moreover, really, so, then, thus, as to, for example, for instance, in fact, in particular, kind of, sort of, as a matter of fact, in other words, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.6327345309 168% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 80.0 55.5748502994 144% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2667.0 2260.96107784 118% => OK
No of words: 544.0 441.139720559 123% => OK
Chars per words: 4.90257352941 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82947280553 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93158304451 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 257.0 204.123752495 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.472426470588 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 855.0 705.55239521 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 77.79511164 57.8364921388 135% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.956521739 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.652173913 23.324526521 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.65217391304 5.70786347227 134% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
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: 0.193883924816 0.218282227539 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0560670722412 0.0743258471296 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0401512080337 0.0701772020484 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12194225876 0.128457276422 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0329151431734 0.0628817314937 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.44 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.58 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 131.0 98.500998004 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => 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.