Analysis Of Summary By Kyle Wiens

I do not totally agree, nor do I totally disagree, with the point about grammar that Kyle Wiens’ argues in his article. As an employer, Wiens has the right to make any of his potential employees write a grammar test and deny jobs to those with poor grammar. In my own experience, I notice that people who have poor grammar skills tend to be less meticulous in their work, just as Wiens suggests in the article. Good grammar is virtually paramount for businesses such as the ones owned by Wiens, which are heavily language based. As well, especially in the new millennium, quality workers and employees are becoming increasingly harder to find among the expanding, figurative sea of qualified post-secondary graduates. Thus, I agree with Wiens’ policy of making all of his potential employees write a grammar test. His policy seems like an effective way of determining the best possible people to hire.

While I can accept the “zero tolerance approach” to grammatical errors adopted by Wiens (that is passing those with poor grammar over for a job), I cannot do the same for Truss’ idea of “zero tolerance”. For Truss to say something so severe in reaction to grammar mistakes leads me to infer that Truss only rates people's worth based on their grammar, rather than their good qualities. While I am sure that Truss does not judge people solely based on their poor grammar, and that she was merely expressing her annoyance concerning the topic, her quote was still irritating to read. In regards to his views about grammar, Wiens is less extreme than Truss, hence I am more inclined to agree with