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 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 more staff 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
In the reading, the writer suggests the benefits of fewer wages due to reduced work time within a week. He believes that new strategy will help companies by raising their profits, reducing unemployment problems, and finally, helping the workforce as their living standards increases. The speaker utterly rejects all the conclusions made in the writing.
Cutting amount of payment of individual employee, ultimately, increases the total expenditure of companies without doing more income. Actually, recruitment of new staffs must force the company to expend more on ensuring additional office space, health manacles, purchasing new computers, etc; that really cut the profit.
The speaker elucidates that, the idea of introducing new job amenities will not work. It quite possible, workers are offered by companies to get more pays for overtime, or, oblige to do same amount of work at decreased work time. If it happens, the job will be much stressful; simultaneously the issues of unemployment remain the same at the same time. So, the economic condition will not progress.
The author is very optimistic about the quality of lives of workers as they will have the time for their families. The lecturer completely holds the opposite views, he says that it absolutely raises the likelihood of losing their employment; thus standards of lives will worse. On top of that, the employees who will spend more time for family have a lower chance of doing better in the job market. The worker who does their best in the work caught the eye of the companies and prospers in life within short time.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, finally, if, really, so, thus, in short, on top of that
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 3.0 10.4613686534 29% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1334.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 261.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11111111111 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0193898071 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6819321285 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.60153256705 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 411.3 419.366225166 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.4217072933 49.2860985944 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.615384615 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0769230769 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 7.06452816374 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.182553419416 0.272083759551 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0632793782983 0.0996497079465 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0421169775613 0.0662205650399 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10079352853 0.162205337803 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0431675679148 0.0443174109184 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.3589403974 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.98 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.