Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on specific points made in the reading passage.
The reading passage proposed a mandatory policy to allow employees the option of working four-day workweek, instead of the usual five-day workweek. The lecture totally disagrees with all the reasons presented in the reading.
First, the reading passage claimed that companies would make more profit form the new policy, because four-week workers are less likely to make mistakes as they have taken better rest out of work. So the company can achieve better results without increasing their costs, because they will simply hire extra employees to account for the missing days from the four-days employees. The lecture sees that the company costs would indeed rise up if it tries to hire more employees, because it means more costs for office space, and for employee benefits such as health insurance, which wouldn't cost the company less if an employee chooses to work four-days workweeks.
Second, the lecture opposes the idea presented in the reading about more job opportunities and less unemployment rates. The lecture sees that companies will instead ask their employees for working extra time, or even worse they would raise their expectation of getting the same results of five-day workweek worker from a four-day workweek worker.
Third and last, the lecture sees that the four-days workweek employees are putting his career at risk. Because they are more likely to lose their jobs during ecomony downturns, and also they are less likely to get promoted to management positions, because companies would prefer five-day employees to better run their business and supervise their employees.
So, in summary, the lecture has went totally against the benefits presented in the reading passage. It states that companies would indeed make less profits, not offering more job opportunities, and putting individuals at risks in their career live.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-29 | Opak Pulup | 3 | view |
| 2019-12-29 | NIMA SAEEDI | 3 | view |
| 2019-12-29 | NIMA SAEEDI | 3 | view |
| 2019-12-24 | NIMA SAEEDI | 80 | view |
| 2019-12-23 | NIMA SAEEDI | 80 | view |
- At universities and colleges, sports and social activities are just as important as classes and libraries and should receive equal financial supports. 76
- Would you prefer to live in a traditional house or in a more modern apartment building? Use specific reasons and details to support your choice. 70
- Nowadays technology is increasingly being used to monitor what people are saying and doing (for example, through cell phone tracking and security cameras). In many cases, the people being monitored are unaware that this is happening. 73
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Teachers should be paid according to how much their students learn. Give specific reasons and examples to support your opinion. 75
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 3
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 581, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...enefits such as health insurance, which wouldnt cost the company less if an employee ch...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 33, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[6]
Message: Note: went is a past participle of "wend". Did you mean 'gone' (past participle of "go")?
Suggestion: gone
...ees. So, in summary, the lecture has went totally against the benefits presented ...
^^^^
Line 9, column 144, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun profits is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...states that companies would indeed make less profits, not offering more job opportun...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, if, second, so, third, in summary, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 10.4613686534 38% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1565.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 292.0 270.72406181 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.3595890411 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13376432452 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.46195245472 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.527397260274 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 463.5 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.25165562914 399% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => 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: 64.3163668231 49.2860985944 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.272727273 110.228320801 129% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.5454545455 21.698381199 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 7.06452816374 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0436523377308 0.272083759551 16% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0231857762788 0.0996497079465 23% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0229085220281 0.0662205650399 35% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0311432987745 0.162205337803 19% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0076151119182 0.0443174109184 17% => 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: 17.1 13.3589403974 128% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 53.8541721854 84% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.0289183223 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.2367328918 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.498013245 118% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.