Occupation, one of the most fundamental compositions of life, has triggered broad discussion about whether job sharing benefits workers. It’s accustomed to learning that individuals are frequently trapped in conflict with inner contradiction, so it’s common that quite a few citizens endorse that job sharing puts workers as beneficiaries. I, however, hold the counterargument that job sharing, to some extent, is unfavorable for workers. There are several reasons why I feel this, which I will explore in the following essay.
What must be prioritized is that I have heeded that it’s persuasive to lend credence to the point of view that people only earn extremely little salaries when working in a part-time job, which is not conducive to one’s personal and professional life. Initially, little salary is unable to fulfill the demands of personal life. To be more specific, with little money, undoubtedly, people wouldn’t be able to purchase what they want and to provide comfortable live environment for their family, let alone to spend money on travelling; in contrast, if people get a stable and long-term job with high salary, they will possess more change to improve the life quality both of themselves and their family. Furthermore, if there are not enough salary, their professional life will be influenced. In detail, one will not have opportunity to take a course or buy equipment to help strengthen his professional ability and skill; however, if they have high income, they will be able to join some job club and learning a lot of experience from other people. Consequently, the claim that job-sharing with little salaries is harmful to one’s personal and professional life.
Another vehicle to my position is that job sharing has a great number of side effect for one’s personality, such as leading to the lack of responsibility and persistence. Chiefly, the more job-sharing workers do, the more they will be irresponsible. To explain it further, job sharing is often provided for students and mothers who have other responsibilities; on the other hand, it will lead to the lack of responsibility if someone gets used to having job sharing all the time but without other responsibilities. Moreover, working on a sharing job all the time will make people lack persistence. Specifically, workers can be fired or change job at any time, they will not willing to focus on one job with patience; on the contrary, concentration will be built if one works in a normal job. Accordingly, there is little doubt that job sharing will bring about several side effects.
To sum up, it’s not easy to tell whether my view outweigh others’, given the complex situation as described above. However, after rigorous consideration, I insist the conclusion that job sharing partly bad for the workers.
- TPO 30 Integrated Writing Task A little over 2 200 years ago the Roman navy attacked the Greek port city of Syracuse According to some ancient historians the Greeks defended themselves with an ingenious weapon called a burning mirror a polished co 70
- Many people want to protect and improve the natural environment Which ONE of the following three actions is MOST useful for individuals to do in their daily lives if they want to help the environment Why Walking or bicycling instead of driving a car to wo 90
- Many people want to protect and improve the natural environment Which ONE of the following three actions is MOST useful for individuals to do in their daily lives if they want to help the environment Why Walking or bicycling instead of driving a car to wo 95
- Some people prefer to attend that the fairly small class sizes while others prefer to attend large institutions that have more lecture style classes with a hundred of students 85
- Are governments doing well in educating people to pay attention to the importance of food nutrition and healthy eating 71
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, but, consequently, furthermore, however, if, moreover, so, then, i feel, in contrast, such as, 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 : 19.0 15.1003584229 126% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 9.8082437276 133% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 13.8261648746 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.0286738351 136% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 43.0788530466 81% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 52.1666666667 107% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.0752688172 161% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2368.0 1977.66487455 120% => OK
No of words: 457.0 407.700716846 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18161925602 4.8611393121 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62358717085 4.48103885553 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05406500173 2.67179642975 114% => OK
Unique words: 237.0 212.727598566 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.518599562363 0.524837075471 99% => OK
syllable_count: 736.2 618.680645161 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 9.59856630824 83% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.94265232975 202% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6003584229 87% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 20.1344086022 124% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 83.0182376215 48.9658058833 170% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.555555556 100.406767564 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.3888888889 20.6045352989 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.5 5.45110844103 156% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 11.8709677419 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88709677419 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.449132686934 0.236089414692 190% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.160557390318 0.076458572812 210% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.102545692329 0.0737576698707 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.272056343729 0.150856017488 180% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.113611410496 0.0645574589148 176% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 11.7677419355 133% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 58.1214874552 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 10.1575268817 128% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.06 10.9000537634 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.78 8.01818996416 110% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 86.8835125448 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.002688172 120% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.0537634409 119% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => 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.