The contentious argument that whether organizations can solicit personal information from job seekers in an employment application has sparked a heated debate among many. In this essay, I will illustrate the merits and demerits of such practice by employers and then provide my own opinion.
On the one hand, there are benefits to organizations in acquiring information about a prospective employee, including his hobbies, marital status, et cetera. The primary advantage is that the multinational corporations can gauge whether an applicant is a best-fit or not for a vacancy by asking for his or her personal data. For instance, a position that requires travelling frequently to various metropolitan cities in the world will not be a good-fit for married people because of their marital commitment. In addition, an organization can increase its employee retention rate by enquiring about a potential hire’s hobbies and interests. For example, a financial analyst who is fond of latest gadgets would be excited to work for a high tech corporation rather than another applicant who despises an advanced device.
On the other hand, there are some cons in employers seeking personal information from job applicants. First of all, an organization may inadvertently drive away the best qualified candidate who has privacy concerns by asking for one’s hobbies, interests, marital status, et cetera. Moreover, some employers may resort to discriminatory practices by selecting potential hires based on their personal preferences. For instance, an interviewer who despises a game of cricket may overlook an applicant whose passion is to play with a bat and ball.
Having considered a range of arguments, I firmly believe that the merits of an organization seeking personal information from job candidates outweigh the drawbacks; employers can match applicants to the vacancies and increase employee retention rates.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 691, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'of the latest'.
Suggestion: of the latest
...xample, a financial analyst who is fond of latest gadgets would be excited to work for a ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, if, look, may, moreover, so, then, for example, for instance, in addition, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 13.1623246493 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 24.0651302605 58% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 41.998997996 81% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 8.3376753507 216% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1634.0 1615.20841683 101% => OK
No of words: 294.0 315.596192385 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.55782312925 5.12529762239 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14082457966 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16626293487 2.80592935109 113% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 176.041082164 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.581632653061 0.561755894193 104% => OK
syllable_count: 516.6 506.74238477 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 7.0 2.52805611222 277% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 16.0721442886 75% => 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: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.1036597834 49.4020404114 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.166666667 106.682146367 128% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.5 20.7667163134 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.41666666667 7.06120827912 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.267354952913 0.244688304435 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.100744528434 0.084324248473 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0510330408985 0.0667982634062 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.15295239661 0.151304729494 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.056743566387 0.056905535591 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.0 13.0946893788 130% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.2 50.2224549098 60% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 11.3001002004 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.26 12.4159519038 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.09 8.58950901804 117% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 78.4519038076 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.