TPO 1

The reading passage examines the issue of working for a shorten week, and the professor's lecture focuses on the same topic. However, he claims that working four days a week will not have benefits on economy, companies and individuals, which contradicts what he reading passage states. The professor provides three compelling arguments to support his idea.

Frist, although the reading passage suggests that shortened workweek would increase company profits since workers would make less mistakes during their work. The professor argues in the lecture that company will spend more money if workers only work four days a week. This is because company may need to recruit more people to work, this means more cost on training and medical care, regardless people work four or five days a week. Also, it will take more money to buy computers and need more office space.

In addition, contrary to the statement in the reading that working for a shorten week can reduce unemployment rate, the professor contends that due to the high cost of hiring a new person, company is more willing to let employees work overtime. Specifically, company will raise their expectation of their employees.

Finally, the professor assert that working four days a week will increase risks of people, whereas the author of the reading state that it can improve the quality of people's lives. The professor shows that this claim is specious by pointing out that if people only work four days a week, it is less likely for them to get promotion, and this will also not helpful to strengthen their work abilities since they work less than those work five days a week.