Some think that only those people who have worked for a company for many years should be promoted to a higher position.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
There is an opinion that primarily staff members who have dedicated many years to working for a particular company should be given executive positions in a company. I disagree with this viewpoint in as much as younger workers may have more skills and if not provided with an opportunity for a promotion, they will become demotivated.
Although senior employees have proved to be reliable and loyal, more often than not, it is novices who have a wider cluster of actual skills. This is because young specialists exert their full effort in mastering their hard and soft skills in order to meet the requirements of today’s highly competitive job market. Therefore, having been promoted, such workers may bring innovation and help to better incorporate the latest technological advances into business processes, which is irreplaceable for every company to flourish.For example, the average age of a new hire at Facebook is only 23, for this very purpose.
Yet another reason why less experienced staff members should have even chances for a promotion is that otherwise they will not be motivated to do their best. Knowing that however hard they try, they still will not be given a higher position in a company, young employees are likely to grow reluctant to go the extra mile, which may negatively affect a company’s revenue and curb its development. To illustrate, a prominent IT entrepreneur Pavel Durov had to leave his first workplace since, despite his outstanding abilities, he was not rewarded with a leading role. As a result, he has successfully set up his own business, while his employer lost his company due to a lack of highly qualified workers.
To sum up, even though individuals who have worked fewer years for a particular company might be less trustworthy, they should be equally promoted as they have up-to-date knowledge and skillsets. Besides that, this will encourage them to apply their abilities to the fullest, thus contributing to the prosperity of a company.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 623, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...book is only 23, for this very purpose. Yet another reason why less experienced ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 444, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... illustrate, a prominent IT entrepreneur Pavel Durov had to leave his first workp...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, first, however, if, may, so, still, therefore, thus, while, for example, as a result, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 24.0651302605 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 37.0 41.998997996 88% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1690.0 1615.20841683 105% => OK
No of words: 327.0 315.596192385 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16819571865 5.12529762239 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25242769721 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97019519517 2.80592935109 106% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 176.041082164 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.626911314985 0.561755894193 112% => OK
syllable_count: 530.1 506.74238477 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 5.43587174349 166% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 16.0721442886 68% => 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: 29.0 20.2975951904 143% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 48.3267118101 49.4020404114 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 153.636363636 106.682146367 144% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.7272727273 20.7667163134 143% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.90909090909 7.06120827912 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.272479560248 0.244688304435 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.100643928396 0.084324248473 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0955805954614 0.0667982634062 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.176734141304 0.151304729494 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0508678747325 0.056905535591 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.8 13.0946893788 136% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.04 50.2224549098 84% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.3001002004 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.3 12.4159519038 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.86 8.58950901804 115% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 78.4519038076 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 9.78957915832 143% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.1190380762 134% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.