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 in order 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 reading passage states that four-day work for 80 percent of pay is more beneficial and effective than five days a week for employees and provides three reasons for support. However, the lecturer finds all the ideas mentioned by the reading very dubious and uncertain and presents some evidence to refute each of them.
First, the author argues that the option of four-day work would boost company profits dramatically, and it is effective due to costly errors. Conversely, the speaker contends that working four days a week enforce the company to spend much more money because adding new employees would require more training programs, medical benefits, and accommodation for them. Hence, there will not be a great deal of increasing benefits for the company allocated to reducing the workweek.
Second, the article holds the view that suggesting a four-day work option would heighten company benefits by decreasing the unemployment rate. On the contrary, the professor asserts that reducing workweek would force the company to hire new employees and this would cause to raise expectations. Therefore, it would be better for the company to ask its employees to work more hours instead of just four-day work.
Third, the reading claims that the option of working for only four days has more advantages for company members and employees because they can increase the quality of their lives by spending more time with their family members. In contrast, the lecturer says that the option of a four-day workweek would be risky for employees to be fired during an economic crisis and can reduce the quality of employees' lives.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-27 | aymenhamrouni | 88 | view |
| 2020-01-06 | Sally Bassem | 78 | view |
| 2020-01-06 | S M Naimul Mamun | 85 | view |
| 2019-12-18 | tuktuki1311 | 71 | view |
| 2019-12-06 | sandeshbhandari2 | 85 | view |
- In the United States, it had been common practice since the late 1960s not to suppress natural forest fires. The “let it burn” policy assumed that forest fires would burn themselves out quickly, without causing much damage. However, in the summer of 1 85
- In the United States, medical information about patients traditionally has been recorded and stored on paper forms. However, there are efforts to persuade doctors to adopt electronic medical record systems in which information about patients is stored in 73
- A recent study reveals that people especially young people are reading far less literature—novels, plays, and poems—than they used to. This is troubling because the trend has unfortunate effects for the reading public, for culture in general, and for 73
- Jane Austen (1775-1817) is one of the most famous of all English novelists, and today her novels are more popular than ever, with several recently adapted as Hollywood movies. But we do not have many records of what she looked like. For a long time, the o 73
- XX_Azad 3
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 273, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'raising'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'cause' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: raising
...hire new employees and this would cause to raise expectations. Therefore, it would be be...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, first, hence, however, second, so, therefore, third, in contrast, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1366.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 265.0 270.72406181 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.15471698113 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03470204552 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53737038822 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 143.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.539622641509 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 406.8 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 26.0 21.2450331126 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 37.578717381 49.2860985944 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.6 110.228320801 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.5 21.698381199 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.3 7.06452816374 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.374224391482 0.272083759551 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.165529141338 0.0996497079465 166% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0917145808622 0.0662205650399 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.252222472059 0.162205337803 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0180117991978 0.0443174109184 41% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 13.3589403974 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.89 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.86 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.498013245 118% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.