Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is more enjoyable to have a job where you work only three days a week for long hours than to have a job where you work five days a week for shorter hours. Use spec
Some firms today are trying to experiment with a shorter workweek. In my opinion, I agree with the statement that a job where you work three days but long hours is far better than a job where you work five days a week but shorter hours. I feel this way for many potential reasons, which I will present in the following essay.
First of all, working three days but longer hours would be less stressful. Big part of the stress process is apprehension or premonition, which sometimes happens subconsciously. We can all agree that all jobs are stressful in a certain way and to a specific degree. A job that you have to meet new people every day, such as customer service positions, might be intimidating to some people. Another job where you need to finish tasks before a deadline in a fast-paced environment could be overwhelming for some individuals. As a result, going to work more days would be more stressful since workers would be stressed thinking about themselves being swamped at their workplace the days before the actual workday. This worrisomeness would affect their quality of life and mental health. On the other hand, working only three days but longer hours would be better as employees would spend less time thinking about their workplace and what happens there. Consequently, they would be able to enjoy their life more. In addition, most jobs are in the morning. Thus, if people who work full-time want to do some government errands in the morning, they will not be available to do that and they will need to ask for days off, which is not always possible for the employer. Conversely, if they work only three days a week, they will be capable of finishing any tasks that need a trip to a government office without having to request days off work.
Moreover, a three-day workweek would be less costly. Commuting or driving five days to work is more expensive than doing that only three days. Besides, this would also save on the money spent on food since more days at work requires buying ready-to-eat food, which is often expensive. In contrast, staying at home more days give workers opportunity to cook, which is more economic. what's more, people could end up eating junk food more frequently if they work more days since fast food is more convenient and cheaper. Hence, a longer workweek would have a negative impact on health. On the contrary, a shorter workweek allows individual to eat more healthy gourmet food at home.
To sum up, In my view, more companies will adopt a three-day workweek in the future because it offers more benefits for both the employer and the employee.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-04-11 | maryka72 | 60 | view |
| 2023-03-07 | Hibahtabbaa | 70 | view |
| 2023-02-27 | kevin1105 | 66 | view |
| 2023-02-26 | Hibahtabbaa | 60 | view |
| 2023-02-23 | can111 | 3 | view |
- Agnostids were a group of marine animals that became extinct about 450 million years ago. Agnostid fossils can be found in rocks in many areas around the world. From the fossil remains, we know that agnostids were primitive arthropods-relatives of modern- 90
- TPO-27 Integrated WritingThe little ice age was a period of unusually cold temperature in many parts of the world that lasted from about the year 1350 until 1900CE. There were southern harsh winters, and glaciers grew also in many areas. Scientist have lo 90
- TPO-07 - Integrated Writing TaskIn an effort to encourage ecologically sustainable forestry practices, an international organization started issuing certifications to wood companies that meet high ecological standards by conserving resources and recycling 85
- The world’s forests are facing increasing pressure which, if left unchecked, will threaten the health of many industries, economies, nations, and lives. The development of an international fund to help developing countries implement useful conservation 76
- 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 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 861, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[3]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
...e days but longer hours would be better as employees would spend less time thinkin...
^^
Line 5, column 1438, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ithout having to request days off work. Moreover, a three-day workweek would be ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 383, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Whats
...tunity to cook, which is more economic. whats more, people could end up eating junk f...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 383, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: what's
...tunity to cook, which is more economic. whats more, people could end up eating junk f...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 680, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... eat more healthy gourmet food at home. To sum up, In my view, more companies wi...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 157, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...for both the employer and the employee.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, consequently, conversely, first, hence, if, moreover, so, thus, i feel, in addition, in contrast, such as, as a result, first of all, in my opinion, in my view, on the contrary, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 15.1003584229 139% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 9.8082437276 224% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 12.0 13.8261648746 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.0286738351 136% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 43.0788530466 72% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 52.1666666667 104% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.0752688172 87% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2166.0 1977.66487455 110% => OK
No of words: 453.0 407.700716846 111% => OK
Chars per words: 4.78145695364 4.8611393121 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61343653406 4.48103885553 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54591909118 2.67179642975 95% => OK
Unique words: 228.0 212.727598566 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.503311258278 0.524837075471 96% => OK
syllable_count: 639.9 618.680645161 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.51630824373 92% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 9.59856630824 83% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.94265232975 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.6003584229 112% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.1344086022 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.626618877 48.9658058833 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.1739130435 100.406767564 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6956521739 20.6045352989 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.82608695652 5.45110844103 180% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.5376344086 108% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 11.8709677419 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.85842293907 181% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88709677419 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.423022711315 0.236089414692 179% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.12135637783 0.076458572812 159% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.128145158816 0.0737576698707 174% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.282969915145 0.150856017488 188% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.161497404636 0.0645574589148 250% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 11.7677419355 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 69.11 58.1214874552 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.3 10.1575268817 82% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.44 10.9000537634 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.47 8.01818996416 93% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 86.8835125448 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.002688172 80% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.0537634409 95% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 10.247311828 78% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.