In the United States, employees typically work five days a week for eight hours each day. However, many employees want to work a four-day week and are willing to accept less pay inorder to do so. A mandatory policy requiring companies to offer their employees the option of working a four-day workweek for four-fifths (80 percent)of their normal pay would benefit the economy as a whole as well as the individual companies and the employees who decided to take the option. The shortened workweek would increase company profits because employees would feel more rested and alert, and as a result, they would make fewer costly errors in their work. Hiring morestaff to ensure that the same amount of work would be accomplished would not result in additional payroll costs because four-day employees would only be paid 80 percent of the normal rate. In the end, companies would have fewer overworked and error-prone employees for the same money, which would increase company profits. For the country as a whole, one of the primary benefits of offering this option to employees is that it would reduce unemployment rates. If many full-time employees started working fewer hours, some of their workload would have to be shifted to others. Thus, for every four employees who went on an 80 percent week, a new employee could be hired at the 80 percent rate. Finally, the option of a four-day workweek would be better for individual employees. Employees who could afford a lower salary in exchange for more free time could improve the quality of their lives by spending the extra time with their families, pursuing private interests, or enjoying leisure activities.
The article and lecture are both about the existance of a policy of giving the employees the option of working a four-day workweek for four-fifth of their normal pay or the typical five-day workweek for full-payment. The author beleives that this new policy could actually help both companies and employees have better investments over time. However the professor explains that this policy would result in spending a lot of money by companies and even harm future advancements in employees lives.
First of all, the author claims that having the option of working fou-day workweek would eventually benefits companies financial-wise as the rested employees are less prone to errors and there is an oprtunaty for hiring new staff. This point was refuted by the lecturer. He states that this new rule may seem to decrease the costs but it actually does not. Hiring new employees results in spending much more money, providing traning and heath ensurance, provoding more offices equipped with computers.
Secondly, the reading says that this policy decreases the unempolyment rate. The ensuing profits of it brings the chance for new staff. The professor opposes this point by explaining that it doesn't follow that the policy decreases the unemployment rate because it is costly as mentioned before. therefor companies are more interested to offer their employees overtime working to make up that part, as a result it rises the expectations of employers as they think their four-day employees are able to work the same amount of job as a full-time employee which of course makes the atmosphere unpleasant.
Finally, the article posists that the afformentioned option will elevates the lives of employees by bringing more free time. According to professor this contributes to more risks. It prevents further advances in proffessional lives of employees.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 343, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...yees have better investments over time. However the professor explains that this policy...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 101, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'would' requires the base form of the verb: 'benefit'
Suggestion: benefit
...rking fou-day workweek would eventually benefits companies financial-wise as the rested ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 193, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...pposes this point by explaining that it doesnt follow that the policy decreases the un...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 297, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Therefor
...cause it is costly as mentioned before. therefor companies are more interested to offer ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 66, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'elevate'
Suggestion: elevate
...sts that the afformentioned option will elevates the lives of employees by bringing more...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, of course, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1557.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 295.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27796610169 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76688672808 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.552542372881 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 472.5 419.366225166 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 74.6638726397 49.2860985944 151% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.214285714 110.228320801 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0714285714 21.698381199 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.64285714286 7.06452816374 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.269164269873 0.272083759551 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0770191854589 0.0996497079465 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0979512424614 0.0662205650399 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164210574136 0.162205337803 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0919531202745 0.0443174109184 207% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 13.3589403974 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.91 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 63.6247240618 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.