Many high-level positions in companies are filled by men even though the workforce in many developed countries is more than 50 per cent female. Companies should be required to allocate a certain percentage of these positions to women.
To what extent do you agree?
In developed countries, men and women occupy equal managerial and director level positions in a company. Some people believe that organisations ought to put fixed percentage to appoint women in positions with high ranks. In my view, I strongly disagree with this statement as the selection for any position should be on the criteria of skills and experience required.
There are a great number of reasons why fixing the amount of females in a company will have adverse results. The most important one is that different positions especially the positions to control the company, requires a certain set of skills and experience regardless of gender. It should be the qualification and character as a choosing factor for such positions. In other words, it is possible that companies might cross the percentage of women staff if their needs are fulfilled by women but making a rule of hiring certain number of females would cripple the company to hire the deserving one.
Another reason to not follow the idea of certain number of women in the company is that some roles requires late sitting and intense travelling. And as most females are uncomfortable sitting late and with male staff, it hinders them to complete their job effectively. Moreover, women are mostly taking care of their household as well which again restrict their movement from city to city for business purposes. For instance, women working as personal relationship manager would be less productive as compared to men because men would be comfortable to travel anywhere with any working time.
Finally, fixing the number of women to be hired would affect the corporate environment. It is likely that to complete the female quota of a company, some of the women resources would not be upto the par. This would deteriorate the productivity of employees who are more deserving and experienced and now this unfair hiring would discourage them to work properly. In this way, the competent workers would feel unfairly treated and it would also destroys the oppurtunity for deserving people who would get the job instead of hiring an uncompetent women.
Given this argument, it is reasonable to conclude that the process of appointing individuals for important designations, companies should always prefer seniority and a best fit personality rather than gender.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 150, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...complete the female quota of a company, some of the women resources would not be upto the p...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 445, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'would' requires the base form of the verb: 'destroy'
Suggestion: destroy
...feel unfairly treated and it would also destroys the oppurtunity for deserving people wh...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 484, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to people'
Suggestion: to people
... destroys the oppurtunity for deserving people who would get the job instead of hiring...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 546, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'woman'?
Suggestion: woman
...he job instead of hiring an uncompetent women. Given this argument, it is reasona...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 167, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[1]
Message: Use 'the' with the superlative.
Suggestion: the
...nies should always prefer seniority and a best fit personality rather than gender...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, if, moreover, so, well, for instance, in my view, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 7.85571142285 204% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 13.0 10.4138276553 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 24.0651302605 104% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 41.998997996 107% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1956.0 1615.20841683 121% => OK
No of words: 378.0 315.596192385 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1746031746 5.12529762239 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40933352052 4.20363070211 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79142026555 2.80592935109 99% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 176.041082164 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.531746031746 0.561755894193 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 621.9 506.74238477 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.5494810437 49.4020404114 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.25 106.682146367 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.625 20.7667163134 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.25 7.06120827912 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.01903807615 100% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.199963703635 0.244688304435 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.072700697502 0.084324248473 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0484515908371 0.0667982634062 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.120743112618 0.151304729494 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0630596698794 0.056905535591 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.0946893788 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 50.2224549098 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.4159519038 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.58950901804 102% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 78.4519038076 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.