The lecture casts doubt on all three points made in the passage about the benefits of adopting a workweek of four days.
To begin with, the lecture rebuts the claim made by the reading that a workweek of four days would be beneficial for the company, owing to the reduction in the stress of employees, stating that they would make less errors. As a result, they company would spend less on correcting expensive mistakes and also employ more hands, thereby, increasing profits. However, the lecturer disagrees with this, saying that the company would be running at a loss because they would be spending excess money on more medical benefits, trainings, computers, and larger office space as well. Moreover, apart from more expenditure, the employment of more people is not very promising because the incentives are the same for both four days and five days workers.
Furthermore, the lecture refutes the point that adopting a shorter workweek would be beneficial to the economy as there would be the employment of more hands, as stated in the reading. In contrast, the lecturer says that the company would look for ways to prevent combat the shorter working hours, thus, they may kind of raise the expectations of employees, or make the them work over.
Finally, the lecture does not agree that the employees would gain from a shorter workweek in that they have more time to spend with family, or pursue personal interest, at least. Nevertheless, the lecturer argues that first, the employees may fall ill from the enormous workload. Moreover, they may be the first to be retrenched during a recession, and will be passed over for promotions. So, to a great extent, their career is harmed.
To sum up, the lecture effectively challenges all the points made in the reading.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 211, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun errors is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...employees, stating that they would make less errors. As a result, they company would...
^^^^
Line 3, column 366, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'them'?
Suggestion: the; them
... the expectations of employees, or make the them work over. Finally, the lecture does ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, look, may, moreover, nevertheless, so, thus, well, apart from, at least, in contrast, kind of, as a result, to begin with, to sum up, to a great extent
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 5.04856512141 257% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1477.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 299.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 4.9397993311 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54966659925 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.521739130435 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 439.2 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 2.5761589404 272% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.4186446807 49.2860985944 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.083333333 110.228320801 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.9166666667 21.698381199 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 16.6666666667 7.06452816374 236% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.389842633367 0.272083759551 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.136775587376 0.0996497079465 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0723199735053 0.0662205650399 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.176320297433 0.162205337803 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.127043280438 0.0443174109184 287% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 13.3589403974 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.67 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.