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.
I mostly disagree with the author's presumption that a company should hire outside consultants for the efficient operation of the company. Here, three points are disscussed below for supporting my side.
A company consists of many employees who are expertise in their related sectors. They can suggest and provide the helpful suggestions to the company that they have already faced and experienced the weaknesses and strengths working in the company.
An office member knows what is going inside his/her office better than an outsider. So, the companies can organize regular meetings and have discussions among the employs for the effective management and development. The companies can extirpolate both the positive and negative aspects of the company management systems, operation and member services through the feedback from its employees that may be helpful for the effective running of the business.
However, hiring outside consultants may be also fruitful for the company to undersatand the remarks and feedbacks from the public and its customers who are using the company's goods and services. In addition to it, such consultants are well known about outside policies and market analysis that may also provide effective guidance and valuable directions for the judicious conduction of operations in the company.
In the nutshell, a company is benefitted more from taking advices and suggestions from it own employers rather than any outside consultants for the better operation and development of the company.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 28, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
I mostly disagree with the authors presumption that a company should hire ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 38, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a are'.
Suggestion: who is a are
... A company consists of many employees who are expertise in their related sectors. The...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, may, so, well, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 19.5258426966 41% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.4196629213 56% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.3162921348 53% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 33.0505617978 45% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 58.6224719101 46% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1297.0 2235.4752809 58% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 234.0 442.535393258 53% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.54273504274 5.05705443957 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.91114542567 4.55969084622 86% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81496800222 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 129.0 215.323595506 60% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.551282051282 0.4932671777 112% => OK
syllable_count: 404.1 704.065955056 57% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 6.24550561798 32% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 20.2370786517 49% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.9759432868 60.3974514979 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.7 118.986275619 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4 23.4991977007 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.1 5.21951772744 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 5.13820224719 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.383671232731 0.243740707755 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.150398000043 0.0831039109588 181% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0940115443081 0.0758088955206 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.214407073453 0.150359130593 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0419094168579 0.0667264976115 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 14.1392134831 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.8420337079 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.15 12.1639044944 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.03 8.38706741573 108% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 100.480337079 63% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum 250 words wanted.
Rates: 33.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 2.0 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.