The following appeared as part of an article in a popular science magazine.
Scientists must typically work 60 to 80 hours a week if they hope to further their careers; consequently, good and affordable all day child care must be made available to both male and female scientists if they are to advance in their fields. Moreover, requirements for career advancement must be made more flexible so that preschool-age children can spend a significant portion of each day with a parent."
The author of an excerpt presented in the popular magazine states that scientists should be provided with reasonable and good daycare for their children and younger must be able to spend a good chunk of their day with a parent. This article brings to light the need for scientists to focus on their research and at the same time, be able to spend time with their family equally. However, this argument poses a few flaws in its reasoning to validate its claims.
Science consists of a wide array of sectors and does not conform to the notion of people in white lab coats anymore. The author fails to take into specification the type of scientists they are referring to. A 'traditional' scientist, who is working on a research project may need to heavily invest a large amount of time for the same. However, a 'Computer' Scientist does not have the same kind of load and can perhaps even work remotely from the comfort of their homes, surrounded by family. Additionally, the statistics for the number of scientists working longer hours and how many of them are parents, has not been provided. If this is true, this leads to skewed metrics in which a computer scientist, who does not probably need the concessions listed in the article, may be given the services and a traditional scientist in need of it may not be able to get it due to probable lack of funds.
Any work, done mindlessly or perfunctorily over longer periods of time leads to a dip in the overall productivity and ultimately the efficacy of the results achieved. Scientists working for these amount of prolonged hours for a longer periods of time would usually be burnt out. The author has also failed to consider the fact the it is not always that quantity matters, but quality does too. Moreover, traditional scientists usually work in a team for research purposes. The work could be divided and the scientists could be judged over the quality of their work over the quantity. If true, this could drastically reduce the work hours and hence enable the scientists to spend more time with their families and children.
A vital point missing from the article is the statistic that how many of the families that have such scientists have both working parents? If one of the parent is a homemaker, the need for affordable childcare is eliminated as at least one parent is present to tend to the child.
Hence, the argument as it stands is flawed due to the lack of statistics and finer details of what type of scientists does this policy conform to. If the author would be able to provide a clearer picture of the numbers and consider the above stated nuances, the argument would definitely hold water and could be implemented in the future
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-16 | tanayjawle | 68 | view |
| 2021-09-27 | sanket_chaudhary | 34 | view |
- The following appeared as part of an article in a popular science magazine Scientists must typically work 60 to 80 hours a week if they hope to further their careers consequently good and affordable all day child care must be made available to both male a 68
- In some companies employees are allowed to express their feelings and opinions about the company by sending electronic messages to everyone in the company In other companies this type of communication is strictly prohibited What restrictions if any do you 66
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the vice president of Gigantis a development company that builds and leases retail store facilities Nationwide over the past five years sales have increased significantly at outlet stores that deal exclusively i 78
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 474 350
No. of Characters: 2185 1500
No. of Different Words: 212 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.666 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.61 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.516 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 147 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 113 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.947 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.918 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.526 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.304 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.304 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.065 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 327, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'it'?
Suggestion: the; it
...or has also failed to consider the fact the it is not always that quantity matters, bu...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, however, if, may, moreover, so, at least, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 55.5748502994 126% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 16.3942115768 30% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2228.0 2260.96107784 99% => OK
No of words: 474.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 4.70042194093 5.12650576532 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66599839874 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57648062613 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.459915611814 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 689.4 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.1423186826 57.8364921388 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.263157895 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.9473684211 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.52631578947 5.70786347227 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.201034203741 0.218282227539 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0633267203302 0.0743258471296 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.050367907489 0.0701772020484 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.109449368516 0.128457276422 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0473171863607 0.0628817314937 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.3550499002 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.28 12.5979740519 82% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 98.500998004 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.