All too often, companies hire outside consultants to suggest ways for the company to operate more efficiently. If companies were to spend more time listening to their own employees, such consultants would be unnecessary.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with these statements and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statements might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position
The argument stated above is not reliable because it is based on many incomplete assumptions. These assumptions render the main conclusion, that cow flu inoculations cannot be routinely administered to everyone in a cow-flu affected area, invalid.
Firstly it fails to mention the exact statistics of the number of deaths which have occurred after inoculations. It may be possible that one out of every five hundred people inoculated died. This does not mean that the percentage of the remaining huge population of people who were actually saved from the cow flu as a result of inoculation be ignored. Had the author mentioned figures which pointed to at least more than 50% people dying because of inoculation, the conclusion would have been satisfactory. Significant number of deaths will be caused by cow flu rather than inoculations.
Furthermore, it fails to delve upon the exact reason behind the deaths of people after inoculation. There may be many reasons behind such deaths. Maybe the person had history of some other diseases too because of which he died. Or, it may be possible that vaccination needles were not properly sterilised. Had the author mentioned evidence stating the inoculated medicine the only reason behind the deaths, the conclusion would have been more acceptable.
Finally, it is quite unlikely that a medicine can lead to death. The author does not clearly explain how the cow flu inoculation can lead to death. It may be possible that it reacts in a deleterious manner with some particular bacteria present in an affected person's body. Therefore persons having that particular disease can be forestalled from such inoculations. Had anything such been mentioned, it would have clearly weakened the argument.
All these points clearly highlight the loose ends the author has left in the argument.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 183, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a deleterious manner" with adverb for "deleterious"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...eath. It may be possible that it reacts in a deleterious manner with some particular bacteria present i...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 274, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...ia present in an affected persons body. Therefore persons having that particular disease ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, if, may, so, therefore, at least, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 0.0 11.1786427146 0% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 55.5748502994 61% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1544.0 2260.96107784 68% => OK
No of words: 295.0 441.139720559 67% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.23389830508 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.56307096286 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83768703026 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 204.123752495 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.535593220339 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 491.4 705.55239521 70% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.1189867591 57.8364921388 57% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 85.7777777778 119.503703932 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.3888888889 23.324526521 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.70786347227 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0919634669419 0.218282227539 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0317369812957 0.0743258471296 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0233031472193 0.0701772020484 33% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0494559162628 0.128457276422 38% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0279593455793 0.0628817314937 44% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 14.3799401198 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.91 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 98.500998004 66% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.