In an effort to improve our employees' productivity, we should implement electronic monitoring of employees' Internet use from their workstations. Employees who use the Internet from their workstations need to be identified and punished if we are to reduce the number of work hours spent on personal or recreational activities, such as shopping or playing games. By installing software to detect employees' Internet use on company computers, we can prevent employees from wasting time, foster a better work ethic at Climpson, and improve our overall profits
Attempting for better productivity of the Climpson Industries' employees is certainly a legitimate cause to embark upon. However, implementing an electronic tracking system for this purpose does not seem convincing enough as this argument fails to justify the implicit assumptions and their implications.
The implementation of such monitoring system assumes that the online recreational activities are adversely affecting employees' productivity and the company's profits. If, on the other hand, employees are spending a fraction of their work hours browsing, the entire venture is questionable as it would fail to showcase a marked difference in productivity.
Even if we were to ignore the previous implication, it is unclear whether the employees would spend the work hours, saved by not browsing, on doing their job. It is highly probable that this would instead lead to longer water cooler breaks. In fact, this may also cause the employees to procrastinate more as they are unlikely to be motivated to work once their internet freedoms are curtailed.
Building upon the previous line of thought, this system could not hope to improve work ethic if it aggrandizes procrastination and leads to a fall in employee morale. It is ubiquitously known that punishing someone does not lead to an improvement in their demeanor. If, then, as cited by the passage that the company's profitability depends upon fostering a better work ethic, this would be detrimental instead of ameliorating the problem.
A flourishing work force that is profitable to the company is certainly an attractive situation. For this reason Climpson Industries may choose to improve productivity. But the proposal of implementing a monitoring system to achieve this is unlikely to be accepted as a result of its endogenous faults.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-09-16 | Harshitha2623 | 54 | view |
| 2021-07-07 | Anirudha Balaji Shirsikar | 55 | view |
- Claim: The emergence of the online "blogosphere" has significantly weakened the quality of political discourse in the United Stated.Reason: When anyone can publish political opinions easily, standards for covering news and political topics will inevitably 79
- Some people believe that college students should consider only their own talents and interests when choosing a field of study. Others believe that college students should base their choice of a field of study on the availability of jobs in that field. 83
- In an effort to improve our employees productivity we should implement electronic monitoring of employees Internet use from their workstations Employees who use the Internet from their workstations need to be identified and punished if we are to reduce th 88
- The perceived greatness of any political leader has more to do with the challenges faced by that leader than with any of his or her inherent skills and abilities. 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 118, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'employees'' or 'employee's'?
Suggestion: employees'; employee's
...onal activities are adversely affecting employees productivity and the companys profits. ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 307, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[1]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
...use the employees to procrastinate more as they are unlikely to be motivated to wo...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'so', 'then', 'in fact', 'as a result', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.224755700326 0.25644967241 88% => OK
Verbs: 0.188925081433 0.15541462614 122% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0846905537459 0.0836205057962 101% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0618892508143 0.0520304965353 119% => OK
Pronouns: 0.042345276873 0.0272364105082 155% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.110749185668 0.125424944231 88% => OK
Participles: 0.0586319218241 0.0416121511921 141% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.17535915913 2.79052419416 114% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0488599348534 0.026700313972 183% => Less infinitives wanted.
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.117263843648 0.113004496875 104% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0228013029316 0.0255425247493 89% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00325732899023 0.0127820249294 25% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1814.0 2731.13054187 66% => OK
No of words: 282.0 446.07635468 63% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.43262411348 6.12365571057 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09790868904 4.57801047555 90% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.404255319149 0.378187486979 107% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.333333333333 0.287650121315 116% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.269503546099 0.208842608468 129% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.18085106383 0.135150697306 134% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.17535915913 2.79052419416 114% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 207.018472906 74% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.54609929078 0.469332199767 116% => OK
Word variations: 55.3904466081 52.1807786196 106% => OK
How many sentences: 13.0 20.039408867 65% => OK
Sentence length: 21.6923076923 23.2022227129 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.4119680561 57.7814097925 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.538461538 141.986410481 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6923076923 23.2022227129 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.769230769231 0.724660767414 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 55.0256410256 51.9672348444 106% => OK
Elegance: 1.34444444444 1.8405768891 73% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.343719939461 0.441005458295 78% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.102872644351 0.135418324435 76% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0760200738326 0.0829849096947 92% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.608047140158 0.58762219726 103% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.117912241432 0.147661913831 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.151857429226 0.193483328276 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0643937066378 0.0970749176394 66% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.338709293893 0.42659136922 79% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0664210611358 0.0774707102158 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.228233582418 0.312017818177 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0452869365602 0.0698173142475 65% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.33743842365 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.87684729064 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.82512315271 21% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 6.0 6.46551724138 93% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 5.36822660099 75% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 11.0 14.657635468 75% => OK
---------------------
More content wanted. For issue essays, around 450 words, for argument essays, around 400 words.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations to cover all aspects.