Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Company should pay for employees to get university degree.
Since the dawn of humanity, there always has been a broad spectrum of disparities among people as far as different areas are concerned. One point, however, that almost everyone one may agree upon is the significance of degree of (higher) education. This is mainly by reason of the fact that a university degree has been of more importance for employers. That being said, even in this regard, irreconcilable thoughts might stir heated controversies as to whether companies should get their employees to accomplish a university degree by money or not. One especially reoccurring idea brought up is that workers do not have to be paid to acquire a university degree. From my vantage point, concurrence with this option seems to be wiser approach. There are quite a few reasons endorsing my standpoint, two of which being of particular salience in comparison to others, which are elaborated hereunder.
To begin with, paying for getting a degree substantially degrades paramount importance of science. Regarding this issue, there is a saying that states, "Money is notorious root of all evils." Companies which pays for their staff at the sacrifice of science might consider this notion as a brilliant idea at first glance. They, however, are investing on languishing geniune science. To illuminate my point, I would like to provide an example. Suppose the workers of a specific company to which has been applied this policy. The new policy would lay grounds for putting a desperate effort into obtaining a university degree. To do so, workers would try to only pass the courses however they can - whether with minimum grades or with cheating. Consequently, neither would they pay attention to the content of the courses nor would they give any credence to scientific aspect of the courses, which, in prospect, results in universities - a place for 'science seekers' - riffing with people, who are mere 'degree seekers'.
The second reason which reinforces the preceding assertion that it is so detrimental that employees will be paid for getting a degree is the matter of efficiency. Corporations should put 'quality' before 'quantity'. Money given to staff to attain a university degree is a strong incentive in order for employees to take part in an activities activity urging a great deal of vigor and concentration. As a result, employees who can be otherwise focused on their profession are supposed to dedicate a large portion of their energy to attending various classes, doing research, submitting assignment, to name but a few. As a consequence, their efficiency would decline, and might hurt the whole company.
To cut a long story short, by taking into account all the above-mentioned reasons and many others, I do believe that it is thoughtless of companies to give their workers money to acquire a university degree. This is because of the significance of science and the efficiency of employees.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 447, Rule ID: WHETHER[6]
Message: Can you shorten this phrase to just 'whether', or rephrase the sentence to avoid "as to"?
Suggestion: whether
...houghts might stir heated controversies as to whether companies should get their employees to...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 328, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'activities'' or 'activity's'?
Suggestion: activities'; activity's
... order for employees to take part in an activities activity urging a great deal of vigor a...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, however, if, may, regarding, second, so, as to, as a result, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 15.1003584229 166% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 9.8082437276 153% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 13.8261648746 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.0286738351 136% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 43.0788530466 72% => OK
Preposition: 73.0 52.1666666667 140% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 8.0752688172 235% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2448.0 1977.66487455 124% => OK
No of words: 474.0 407.700716846 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16455696203 4.8611393121 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66599839874 4.48103885553 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96955265137 2.67179642975 111% => OK
Unique words: 257.0 212.727598566 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.542194092827 0.524837075471 103% => OK
syllable_count: 762.3 618.680645161 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 9.59856630824 73% => OK
Article: 2.0 3.08781362007 65% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => 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: 21.0 20.1344086022 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.1518229863 48.9658058833 125% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.272727273 100.406767564 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5454545455 20.6045352989 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.54545454545 5.45110844103 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 11.8709677419 93% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88709677419 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.258909700115 0.236089414692 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0673915764929 0.076458572812 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0544505604278 0.0737576698707 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.151383811552 0.150856017488 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0334088172135 0.0645574589148 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 11.7677419355 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 58.1214874552 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.1575268817 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 10.9000537634 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.01818996416 108% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 86.8835125448 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.002688172 120% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.0537634409 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => 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: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.