AWA Score: 5 out of 6
Coherence and Connectivity (5.0/6):
Your essay generally flows well and maintains a clear line of argument. You have effectively connected your ideas from one paragraph to the next. However, there is room for improvement in terms of transitions and ensuring that each paragraph leads logically to the next.
Word Structure (5.5/6):
Your use of vocabulary is quite strong, and you employ a variety of sentence structures. There are a few minor issues with word choice and sentence structure, but they do not significantly impede comprehension.
Paragraph Structure and Formation (4.5/6):
Your essay is organized into clear paragraphs, each with a distinct topic. However, some paragraphs are quite long, which can make it harder to follow the argument. Consider breaking them into smaller, more focused paragraphs.
Language and Grammar (5.0/6):
Your language and grammar are generally good. There are some minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasings that could be improved for better clarity.
Vocabulary and Word Expression (5.0/6):
You use a wide range of vocabulary, which is commendable. However, there are a few instances where word choice could be more precise, and some sentences could be more concise. Overall, your essay demonstrates good analytical thinking and presents a well-structured argument. There are some areas where improvements can be made, particularly in paragraph structure and grammar, but your essay effectively addresses the flaws in the given argument and provides a thoughtful analysis.
svelaga wrote:
Please rate my essay
The prompt makes the case that the increase in working hours for the employees during the six month period of the experiment where Company Z provided gourment lunches to its employees was also simultaneously followed by an increase in the Company’s profits. While at the face value, this arguments seems compelling, however on deeper investigation, this argumenet presents several flaws which seriously undermines the statement.
Firstly, the author believes that the simultaneous occurence of the events during the six months when the Company provided gourment lunches to the employees, increase in woking hours of the employees and rise in Company’s profits are all correlated. While the number of hours during which the employees stayed in the Company may be justified because they did not have to leave the premises to get lunch, however increase in working hours and increase in profits cannot be justified. The increased work hours maybe due to a variety of reasons like increased workload during that period of time, bonus incentive, and so on. Similarly, increase in Company’s profits can also be due to a variety of reasons like increased sales, price reduction of raw materials or processing, effective management and decreased competition and so on. Without knowing whether the workers had extra workload or other factors have played a role in the Company’s profits, the three events cannot be correlated.
Even considering the three events are correlated, the argument still stands flawed as an experiement which worked for the six month period might not be so effective in the long run. To determine whether it will be successful if implemented successfully, it is necessary to find the answers to the following questions: Did the workers work harder and longer because they were motivated by goument lunches? Do majority of the workers prefer staying indoor and have gorument lunches or go outside and eat meals of their choice? Were the employees aware of the ongoing experiment and did it influence their behavior? The answers to these questions play a vital role in figuring out the success of this scheme in the long run.
Finally, this arugment is based on the assumption that work hours is directly proportional to work productivity, thereby drawing the conclusion that since the employees worked longer during the six month period, the Company witnessed an increased in profits. However this assumption is faulty as there had been several studies showing that worker effiicieny cannot be directly correlated to the number or working hours.
Therefore, the argument is based on several logical fallacies and is unconvincing for the above mentioned reasons. It can be strengthened further if the author mentions all the relevant facts associated with the assumptions.
close
08 Sep 2013, 14:56
