Dear friends,
I have just finished my piece of writing but having no one to help me comment it.
Hope that you guys can help me
Thanks so much.
Best regards,
yin.
Both the reading and the listening mention the relationship between rewards and productivity in business management. While the reading claims that rewarding employees by compensation or incentives can create positive affect which boost the productivity, the listening cast doubts on this point of view by asserting that this method to increasing efficiency of workers can turn out to be counterproductive.
First, in the lecture, the professor stands on the side of the fact that there are many people who don't prefer this form of rewarding. In their opinion, this way is a camouflage for a kind of punish. The more they are desirably rewarded, the more they have to work harder to deserve this. Therefore, the professor concludes that workers don't expect to get more reward as people have assumed. This point of view clearly challenges the point made in the reading that reward makes a positive influence on the employees by giving them motivation to devote themselves to the current job. This plays an important role in increasing company's productivity.
Second, in the listening, the professor also points out an amazing fact that rewards may affect the relationship between workers and their supervisors. In fact, when a worker is put under the pressure of rewards, he may not dare to ask his investigator for more information he is still confused because he will be afraid that his supervisor will have negative impression towards him. This refutes the fact stated in the reading that rewards always force people in motion and create the most positive influence.
Hi,
Lecture and listening resembles each other. Try to use words such as 'author' for the reading passage and 'speaker' for the lecture. Or you can use words such as, the passage mentions or the lecture mentions.
Use more of paraphrased sentences. Its seems to be that you have copied words from the lecture in the second paragraph.
First, in the lecture, the professor stands on the side of asserting that there are many people who don't prefer this form of reward . In their opinion, this way is a camouflaged kind of punishment . The more they are desirably rewarded, the more they have to work harder to deserve this. Therefore, the professor concludes that workers don't expect to get more rewards as people ...
Here, I'll show you how to use a set of two dashes to manage a difficult sentence:
...may not dare to ask his investigator for more information -- even if he is still confused -- because he will be afraid that his supervisor will have negative impression towards him.
@Poojasugandhi: thank you so much Poojasugandhi. When I took the real test, I got rather bad scores. Maybe I didn't paraphrase as you said above. Thank you.
@EF_Kevin: Thank you so much.
usage a set of two dashes is rather strange to me. Frankly, this is the first time I have known this one :|. Is it right if we use it to make our sentence clearer when we have reduced the relative clauses? And I wonder when we can you it and when we cannot?
Pls help me with some of my confusions.
Thank you so much.
Best regards.
^__^
"This plays an important role in increasing company's productivity."
The last sentence in the second paragraph ^, doesn't make sense to me.
"Both the reading and the listening mention the relationship between rewards and productivity in business management."
This is your opening sentence, known alternately to some as the most important one in a non academic essay (thesis is paramount there and it can be long winded sometimes, but I digress).
If you augment it slightly, you can improve the essay drastically. Here's how I'd write it:
The text and auditory portion both argue about a relationship between reward and productivity in business management, but they differ on the effect of the relationship, the first supporting an increase in the independent variable (IV) reward, as causing an increase in the dependent variable (DV), productivity, while the second attempts to deconstruct the very nature of the DV productivity, poking holes in its ability to be defined comprehensively through conventional quantitative measures by citing qualitative properties such as employees' perceptions -- as they relate to bona fide productivity captured in innovations created benevolently, for example -- being entirely absent from consideration.
Heh, I think I started arguing there for a minute myself. Mind you, you can clarify the original obscure sentence, more simply.
Both portions, text and lecture, mention the relationship between reward and productivity, but differ on how they are related.
Practice makes perfect.
A dash can work in the same way as commas. When I write, if I have already used a comma -- in this sentence here, for example -- I use some dashes in the same way as I would use more commas. Too many commas make a sentence confusing.
Reducing relative clauses (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_clause) can improve clarity -- but it also takes away information. The trick is to give only the necessary information, and give it in a way the reader's attention can easily follow. Don't try to explain too much in one sentence.
I hope that helps you!!
Heh, I kind of made to hell with punctuation (".") that helps avoid incoherence.
