Understanding the job applicants is the best way to make strong teams. Some employers prefer to get information from the social media platform, while others put forward the opinion by getting data from previous companies. In my opinion, I totally agree that contacting previous employers is the better way to understand future employees. I feel this way for two main reasons, which I will explore further in my essay. To begin with, people can describe other people elaborately, bypassing the time with them. To explain broadly, past employers have experience working with employees to provide detailed information. On the other hand, just checking on social media only gives trivial details. My personal experience is a compelling example of it. When I was working as a cashier at Walgreens, at that time, my work performance was absolute. Therefore, when I switched jobs, and during my background check, the future company started to research me and contacted the manager of Walgreens, and he gave an honest opinion about me in a detailed way. As a result, I was eligible to work in a new company. Otherwise, if they just checked on Linkedin, is this enough?, they would not have enough details because I did not frequently change my profile information. Thus, from this particular experience, I can say that people can explain to others well. Secondly, asking previous employers is an efficient way to get information because they can communicate within a short period and make the final decision in a limited period. To be specific, when it comes to probation, it does not help the company because this process could be time-consuming. For example, coming back to my previous example, when my new company's manager asked the previous manager about my work as a cashier, it only took a day to go through that process. After that, they hired me the next day. As a result, I could get the job without waiting for long periods. If the manager had chosen the option for probation, my onboarding to the new company could have delayed my onboarding. Thus, I definitely agree that getting reviews from the previous manager can be efficient. In a nutshell, I strongly admit that for selecting the best candidates, asking previous employers is a good option; people can provide detailed information compared to social media. Additionally, this process is efficient.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
Understanding the job applicants is the ...
^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ch I will explore further in my essay. To begin with, people can describe other...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 628, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a detailed way" with adverb for "detailed"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
... and he gave an honest opinion about me in a detailed way. As a result, I was eligible to work in...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hat people can explain to others well. Secondly, asking previous employers is a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...the previous manager can be efficient. In a nutshell, I strongly admit that for...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 253, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...dditionally, this process is efficient.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, well, while, for example, i feel, as a result, in my opinion, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 15.1003584229 79% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 9.8082437276 112% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 13.8261648746 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.0286738351 109% => OK
Pronoun: 46.0 43.0788530466 107% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 52.1666666667 86% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.0752688172 136% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1961.0 1977.66487455 99% => OK
No of words: 389.0 407.700716846 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0411311054 4.8611393121 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44106776838 4.48103885553 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85548922311 2.67179642975 107% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 212.727598566 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.514138817481 0.524837075471 98% => OK
syllable_count: 602.1 618.680645161 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 15.0 9.59856630824 156% => OK
Article: 1.0 3.08781362007 32% => OK
Subordination: 10.0 3.51792114695 284% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.94265232975 202% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.6003584229 107% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.1344086022 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.9987691064 48.9658058833 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.1363636364 100.406767564 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6818181818 20.6045352989 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.22727272727 5.45110844103 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.5376344086 108% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 11.8709677419 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.85842293907 52% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.88709677419 205% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.185708120293 0.236089414692 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0572707796631 0.076458572812 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0790311746327 0.0737576698707 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.143226616152 0.150856017488 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.105417716522 0.0645574589148 163% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 11.7677419355 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 58.1214874552 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 10.1575268817 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.66 10.9000537634 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.01818996416 105% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 86.8835125448 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.002688172 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.0537634409 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.