In many countries senior positions have higher salaries compared to those of young workers of the same company. Some people think this isn’t justified. Do you agree or disagree?
Nowadays, optimal compensation has remained a debatable issue. Some people believe that offering different types of salary to employees based on the designation is not justified. This essay will completely disagree with this view.
One of the key reasons for providing a higher salary to higher-ranked officials is that top-ranked officials are expected to carry more responsibilities. In general, senior officials of an office are likely to have more experiences than lower-ranked officials. Those senior officials will possibly take higher responsibilities for the success of the company than other lower-ranked professionals. Therefore, senior management of a company deserves more compensation than young workers of the same team. To illustrate, HSBC bank offers approximately five-fold higher remuneration to senior designated employees, who are responsible for more than 80% of the company’s triumph.
Another significant rationale for offering a higher compensation package to top-ranked employees is that they are likely to develop a superior strategy for the company. Most often, senior officials work rigorously for the development of new strategies and planning to flourish the company’s fortune. As successful new ideas will possibly generate a hefty amount of wealth for the company, companies give a higher financial benefit to senior officials. According to a study on the Human Resources Policy of different Canadian companies, senior officials get higher compensation because of their significance in strategy development.
In conclusion, senior members deserve higher financials benefits because of taking more responsibilities and the importance of idea generation. In reality, senior officials should offer superior compensation package as they take the company to a new paradigm through successful completion of their responsibilities and the development of amazing strategies.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...l completely disagree with this view. One of the key reasons for providing a h...
^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n 80% of the company's triumph. Another significant rationale for offeri...
^^^^
Line 11, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ignificance in strategy development. In conclusion, senior members deserve hi...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, so, therefore, in conclusion, in general
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 13.1623246493 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 10.4138276553 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 24.0651302605 42% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 41.998997996 83% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 8.3376753507 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1651.0 1615.20841683 102% => OK
No of words: 273.0 315.596192385 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.04761904762 5.12529762239 118% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06481385082 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.4423075705 2.80592935109 123% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 176.041082164 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.542124542125 0.561755894193 97% => OK
syllable_count: 529.2 506.74238477 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.60771543086 118% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.0611809653 49.4020404114 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.928571429 106.682146367 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5 20.7667163134 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.14285714286 7.06120827912 45% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => 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: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.18115223865 0.244688304435 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0713385538735 0.084324248473 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0382186799845 0.0667982634062 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.112811804852 0.151304729494 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0429818031386 0.056905535591 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.8 13.0946893788 128% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 26.81 50.2224549098 53% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.3001002004 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.81 12.4159519038 143% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.55 8.58950901804 111% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 78.4519038076 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.