As businesses become more competitive, every manager is trying to motivate their employee to put more effort into their job performance. Some believe that, the common way to do this is basing an employee’s salary On their rate of production and sales. I, however, do not agree that this method would be the best.
Firstly, one of the most conspicuous facts is that, the performance of many workers cannot simply quantified with the rate of sales or production. For example, my job as a statistician is to gather data, analyze and plan for the future. None of which involves producing or selling products with a definite price tag. Therefore, this renders misusing how much I have sold or produced is not possible for my company where I work. Instead, there are a vast range of standard measurements such as, the exact data, correct analyze, the performance of my planning, and the level of my manager satisfaction that determine how much successful I have been.
Secondly, on the pivotal aspect that need much consideration is that, there are some unexpected factors that effect on the worker’s performance. To instance, it is proved that, the current state of economy, unexpected political issues, and even extreme weather conditions all have significant impact of how much the employee sells or produces. Hurricane, for example, can easily devastate a farm and all its products without any of worker being responsible for any of damages or decrease in production rate. Therefore, basing wages on how much sell or produce can demotivate workers in such cases.
In conclusion, based on above discussion, it seems fair to state that deciding how much employees should earn, solely based on how much they sell or produce, is impossible in most, if not all, cases. Instead employers should look at a more diverse set of performance indicators, including customer satisfaction or work punctuality.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 84, Rule ID: MUCH_COUNTABLE[1]
Message: Use 'many' with countable nouns.
Suggestion: many
...t seems fair to state that deciding how much employees should earn, solely based on ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 201, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Instead,
... impossible in most, if not all, cases. Instead employers should look at a more diverse...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, however, if, look, second, secondly, so, therefore, for example, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 10.4138276553 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 24.0651302605 108% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 41.998997996 83% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1601.0 1615.20841683 99% => OK
No of words: 312.0 315.596192385 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13141025641 5.12529762239 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20279927342 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93863766141 2.80592935109 105% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 176.041082164 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.589743589744 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 511.2 506.74238477 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.3776093936 49.4020404114 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.357142857 106.682146367 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2857142857 20.7667163134 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.35714285714 7.06120827912 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 3.4128256513 176% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.193217460512 0.244688304435 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0683482411268 0.084324248473 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0544287682225 0.0667982634062 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116461044513 0.151304729494 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0301751921908 0.056905535591 53% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.0946893788 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 50.2224549098 98% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.4159519038 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.03 8.58950901804 105% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 78.4519038076 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.