The number of men in higher management roles is way more than women but almost 50% workforce in developed countries is women. Companies should be required to allocate a certain percentage of these positions to women. To what extent do you agree?
In the modern era, women are sharing shoulders with men in almost every field of life doing the same work throughout the world. However, this is opined by some masses that companies should reserve a part of higher management seats for women, keeping in view of holding majority of such seats by men. I disagree with the above mentioned idea, supporting with some points in the upcoming paragraphs.
To begin with, such implementation can result in inefficient work and greater loss for the company. For instance, of a company allocates a certain percentage of seats for a specific gender and the deserving candidates are less in number, then the seats left will be joined by non-deserving ones and teams or projects led by such candidates will definitely effect the company’s profit. Thus, introducing such ideas will definitely help the opportunists, but on a whole, it will lead to more losses than gains.
Additionally, getting on such roles is not easy as a piece of cake. One has to work hard, honing skills and acquiring proper and appropriate training and education before applying for such posts. In this case, if an organisation focuses on a specific gender by holding a portion of seats, it will be injustice for the other gender, as the matter of selection is not based on qualifications but on the basis of sexual orientation.
To conclude, higher management roles are such positions which require skills and personal qualities, and enrolling of such roles should not be based on women or men. It is an unjustifiable suggestion to reserve certain seats for women.
Comments
I didn’t get the first error.
I didn’t get the first error. Could you please elaborate the same for me, please?
you mean this error?
you mean this error?
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: less
'a company allocates a certain percentage of seats for a specific gender and the deserving candidates are less in number.'
Yes... what should I have to
Yes... what should I have to change? I really didn’t get what is said.
The use of "less" when
The use of "less" when referring to a number is common, but considered bad style by some. The word "fewer" is preferred by some.
Hence a simpler sentence could be:
the deserving candidates are fewer...
----------------------------
but I am not 100% sure. I may use 'less' by myself.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 223, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: less
...gender and the deserving candidates are less in number, then the seats left will be joined by ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 357, Rule ID: AFFECT_EFFECT[7]
Message: Did you mean 'affect'?
Suggestion: affect
... led by such candidates will definitely effect the company's profit. Thus, introd...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 43, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ditionally, getting on such roles is not easy as a piece of cake. One has to work...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, so, then, thus, as to, for instance, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 7.30460921844 27% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 7.0 24.0651302605 29% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 41.998997996 98% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1325.0 1615.20841683 82% => OK
No of words: 265.0 315.596192385 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0 5.12529762239 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03470204552 4.20363070211 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89922345086 2.80592935109 103% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 176.041082164 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.57358490566 0.561755894193 102% => OK
syllable_count: 414.9 506.74238477 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => 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: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.1897421328 49.4020404114 132% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.454545455 106.682146367 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0909090909 20.7667163134 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.18181818182 7.06120827912 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.222122660194 0.244688304435 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0837756859155 0.084324248473 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0865024234194 0.0667982634062 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.14973447388 0.151304729494 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.108209293272 0.056905535591 190% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.0946893788 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 50.2224549098 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.02 12.4159519038 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.36 8.58950901804 109% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 78.4519038076 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => 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.