The passage talks about the advantages of Reward system and its affect on the employee's productivity. The professor refutes the claims made in the passage. According to him, Reward system hinders the productivity of the employee.
Firstly, the professor discusses that people do not like the reward system. People just want the money for their work. To strengthen his argument he mentions that there have been no controlled experiment done that proves the advantages of reward system. On the contrary, He says that there have been studies that show that rewards are counterproductive. This directly disagrees with the point made in the passage that rewards gets employees to work hard and improve productivity.
Secondly, the professor says that rewards are punishing. People feel that rewards are manipulating. Furthermore, the professor says that people do not receive the expected reward which makes the person feel disappointed. He says that the more desirable a reward is the more person gets disappointed if he/she does not receive it. This contrast with the claim made in passage that rewards enhances employee’s attitude and motivation.
Finally, the professor says that rewards reduce the quality of work. To bolster his statement, the professor gives an example. Instead of working in collaboration with the supervisor an employee hides his problems so as the supervisor does not give any negative remark which would hinder his chances of receiving the reward. This refutes with the passage as the passage claims that rewards improves the quality of work.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 65, Rule ID: AFFECT_EFFECT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'effect'?
Suggestion: effect
...the advantages of Reward system and its affect on the employees productivity. The profess...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 79, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'employees'' or 'employee's'?
Suggestion: employees'; employee's
... of Reward system and its affect on the employees productivity. The professor refutes the...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 482, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... to work hard and improve productivity. Secondly, the professor says that reward...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 439, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...mployee's attitude and motivation. Finally, the professor says that rewards...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, furthermore, if, second, secondly, so, then, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1332.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 248.0 270.72406181 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.37096774194 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96837696647 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85975519789 2.5805825403 111% => OK
Unique words: 122.0 145.348785872 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.491935483871 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 403.2 419.366225166 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.7564482859 49.2860985944 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 78.3529411765 110.228320801 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.5882352941 21.698381199 67% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 7.06452816374 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 4.33554083885 300% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.344554340892 0.272083759551 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.1276514749 0.0996497079465 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0932424165634 0.0662205650399 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.222278134897 0.162205337803 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0613798952555 0.0443174109184 139% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 13.3589403974 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.27 53.8541721854 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.8 11.0289183223 80% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.27 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.34 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.