Company management should conduct routine monitoring of all employee e-mail correspondence. Such monitoring will reduce the waste of resources such as time and system capacity, as well as protect the company from lawsuits.
There are multiple methods as to how companies interact with each other. The ideal documented mode followed is the e-mail. The prompt recommends company management to intermittently monitor employee e-mail in order to use less resources, save on time and system usage, and act as a shield for company lawsuits. In my opinion, I strongly disagree with this suggestion and argue that company employees should not be continuously monitored in this manner for two reasons.
To begin, tracking employee e-mails in this way is a complete invasion of privacy. Thus, checking every e-mail of their's in this way would make employees unsatisfied and reduce job satisfaction as a whole. For instance, if a gay employee that works for a bakery sends out promotion e-mails to customers, but also uses his e-mail to organise PRIDE meet-ups. This employee may not have opened up about his sexuality to the company. This secret may thus spread gradually within the workplace, and the more orthodox folks might make his life a living hell. On learning that all his e-mails are monitored, he may be so protective of his secret, that he may leave the company immediately. The above example illustrates how monitoring private e-mails of employees can endanger and cause great resentment among employees due to invasion of their private space. People live different private and professional lives. Compelling employees to share all their e-mail communications and trusting the ones who monitor this would not be the most prudent decision.
Further, even if we assume that the privacy of employees are not looked into, how would the monitoring of employee e-mail save up on resources? This decision would, in turn, increase the labour employed for this monitoring, consequently, leading to an increase in time spent by the company. For instance, if a bakery only employs bakers and one receptionist, who also sends out promotional e-mails. To monitor the e-mails of the receptionist, the bakery would have to add up a whole new employee to their salary bill. This would, in turn, increase the amount of time, money and effort spent by the bakery in this task. System capacity would also be doubled due to a further allocation of a system to the employee responsible for monitoring. This example lucidly depicts how this additional monitoring tasks adds to labour and adds up to the time and system capacity.
Of course, some argue that having a close watch on company e-mail would lead to a reduction in the number of lawsuits filed against the company. However, would this step not lead to an overall increase to this as a whole? By invading employee privacy and trusting the employee responsible for monitoring, rumours may spread of their private lives, leading to company dissatisfaction and a rise in company lawsuits. In addition to this, system capacity and time are irrelevantly spent and hinders the resources to be put to better use elsewhere. Passing mandates to check up on employees in this manner would be a waste and serve to the downfall of the company.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, however, if, look, may, so, thus, as to, for instance, in addition, of course, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.5258426966 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.4196629213 145% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 38.0 33.0505617978 115% => OK
Preposition: 75.0 58.6224719101 128% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2551.0 2235.4752809 114% => OK
No of words: 506.0 442.535393258 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04150197628 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.7428307748 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78435774733 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 215.323595506 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.466403162055 0.4932671777 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 803.7 704.065955056 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.3202357978 60.3974514979 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.04 118.986275619 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.24 23.4991977007 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.68 5.21951772744 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.247378802585 0.243740707755 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.078531208392 0.0831039109588 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0592748403498 0.0758088955206 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.179193449106 0.150359130593 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0496316020997 0.0667264976115 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.1392134831 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.1639044944 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 100.480337079 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.