The package of benefits and incentives that Ready-to-Ware offers to professional staff is too costly. Our quarterly profits have declined since the package was introduced two years ago, at the time of our incorporation. Moreover, the package had little positive effect, as we have had only marginal success in recruiting and training high-quality professional staff. To become more profitable again, Ready-to-Ware should, therefore, offer the reduced benefits package that was in place two years ago and use the savings to fund our current research and development initiatives.
The advanatages of incentives and benefits that the companies offer to their employee have been debated for long with people discussing the usefulness of these incenetives. While some argue that the incentive and benefits have distinct positive benefits, others argue that these benefits only add to the business expenss and have no tangible advantage.
The author of this argument is of the view that Ready-to-ware should offer reduced benefits package as it has had only limited positive benifts and recommeneds that the savings be used to fund the research and development initiatives. The argument presented by the author is fallacious and deceives the readers by providing an incomplete view of the scenario. The author makes an array of questionable and unfounded assumptions because of which the argument comes across as rather weak and unconvincing.
Firstly, the premise that the benefit and incentives that ready-to- ware offers to its professional is too costly cannot be accepted on its face value. If the value addition due to a given expense is greater than the cost incurred, then the expense is very much justifiable. Various benefits and incentives that the company is currently providing may be the detrimental factor in the employee retention of the firm and in the absence of those incentives, a higher proportion of the employees may switch the jobs leading to a higher recruitment and training costs. Furthermore, accepting introduction of the package as the sole reason for declines in quarterly profits is not prudent without the data showing a true correlation between the two. Also, the author measures the effectiveness of the package by the success in recruiting and training the staff. In doing, so the author ignores the possibility that the whatever staff that the company is able to recruit may be just due to the benefits and incentives offered by the firm.
Secondly, the faulty assumption that reducing the benefits will lead the company to become profitable is another factor that makes the argument less acceptable. No evidentiary data has been presented to support the claim that the just reduction the incentive and benefits will make the company profitable. Further, the author needs to support his claim of the fact that an increased spending on research and develpement initiatives will be able to help the company turn profitable. As an increased spending on research may not yield desire reults and may end up just as an in creased expenditure.
Therefore, for the reasons cited above, the authors argument falls apart under close scruitiny. If stated this way, the arguments appears unconvincing and fails to prove the conclusion. If the author truly wants to change the mind of the readers and conclusively prove his point, then the argument shold be restructured and more evidentiary proofs needs to be put forward to support the claims made by the author.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-01-01 | ayushtyagi | 66 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 361, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ing an incomplete view of the scenario. The author makes an array of questionable a...
^^^
Line 4, column 637, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...on of the package as the sole reason for declines in quarterly profits is not pru...
^^
Line 5, column 419, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...sed spending on research and develpement initiatives will be able to help the com...
^^
Line 7, column 45, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...efore, for the reasons cited above, the authors argument falls apart under close scruit...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, furthermore, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 14.8657303371 135% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 33.0505617978 76% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 58.6224719101 90% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2443.0 2235.4752809 109% => OK
No of words: 471.0 442.535393258 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18683651805 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65859790218 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86140348065 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 234.0 215.323595506 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.496815286624 0.4932671777 101% => OK
syllable_count: 767.7 704.065955056 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 6.24550561798 0% => OK
Article: 11.0 4.99550561798 220% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.9350195037 60.3974514979 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.722222222 118.986275619 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.1666666667 23.4991977007 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.88888888889 5.21951772744 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => 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: 0.0 4.83258426966 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.163349639927 0.243740707755 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0530725256045 0.0831039109588 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0587485590647 0.0758088955206 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0848323182853 0.150359130593 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0659398621603 0.0667264976115 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 14.1392134831 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.8420337079 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.12 12.1639044944 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 100.480337079 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.