Company X has just switched to a 4-day workweek, mandating that employees work 10 hours per day from
Monday to Thursday instead of 8 hours per day from Monday to Friday. Although the policy is new,
Company X claims that the policy will help to increase profits by shutting down offices on Fridays and to
boost employee morale by reducing commuting time to and from work each week.
The argument claims that reducing travel time will have a positive impact on profits of the firm. While it may be the case but it has may logical gaps that should be addressed before making any conclusion. The argument should take into account whether the policy will really reduce the commute time and if yes, by how much and is it really considerable. The argument completely misses the opinion of the employees and if they are willing to adopt 10-hour working plan. These questions cast serious doubts on the conclusion made, and unsurprisingly, the plan can even affect negatively and lead to reduced profits.
The largest leap in the argument is that the commute time will be reduced to the level that it will lead to increased employee morale. The case might that most of the employees live nearby the office and the commute time is not really high. Further, the commute time might even increase because now the timing overlap among the employees will increase in a 10-hour working pattern. And so, more people will be commuting at the same time that can lead to increased congestion on roads. This can bring down the morale and consequently the profits of the company.
Likewise, the quantification of profits is not clearly stated. It might be that a small increase in profit is obtained by radically changing the work hours appears which obviously is a sub-optimal strategy. There can be alternatives wherein companies could see if employees are really spending their 8 hours working and not getting distracted. Working towards removing those distractions can be an effective strategy.
Even if we assume that the commute time will reduce it is prudent to ask if employees are really willing to work for longer every day. Today about 25% of IT professionals in San Francisco suffer from back, neck or shoulder related health issues. These are shown to be the consequences of long sitting hours and less physical movement. Extending the working hours will further aggravate the problem. Thus, people might not be willing at all to make a transition from 8-hour to 10-hour work shift. If they are forced to do so it will severely affect their well-being and as a consequence performance of the company as a whole will go down.
While the argument presents an interesting claim, it does makes certain crucial assumptions. The argument omits considering if the commute time will really reduce, the opinion of the employees as to whether they are okay working for longer hour. Finally, the argument can be strengthened by quantifying the amount of reduction in travel time, and conducting a survey wherein they can obtain employees' opinion on the new working strategy.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 283, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...t whether the policy will really reduce the commute time and if yes, by how much and is it ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 42, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...he largest leap in the argument is that the commute time will be reduced to the level that ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 205, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...he employees live nearby the office and the commute time is not really high. Further, the c...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 251, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...mmute time is not really high. Further, the commute time might even increase because now th...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 24, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...ive strategy. Even if we assume that the commute time will reduce it is prudent to ask i...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 128, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...ions. The argument omits considering if the commute time will really reduce, the opinion of...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 194, Rule ID: WHETHER[6]
Message: Can you shorten this phrase to just 'whether', or rephrase the sentence to avoid "as to"?
Suggestion: whether
...ly reduce, the opinion of the employees as to whether they are okay working for longer hour. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, finally, if, likewise, may, really, so, then, thus, well, while, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 27.0 12.4196629213 217% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 33.0505617978 85% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 58.6224719101 77% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2236.0 2235.4752809 100% => OK
No of words: 449.0 442.535393258 101% => OK
Chars per words: 4.97995545657 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60321845022 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6786327737 2.79657885939 96% => OK
Unique words: 219.0 215.323595506 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.487750556793 0.4932671777 99% => OK
syllable_count: 684.0 704.065955056 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 11.0 4.99550561798 220% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.9217497898 60.3974514979 53% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 97.2173913043 118.986275619 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5217391304 23.4991977007 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.86956521739 5.21951772744 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 7.80617977528 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.20934640801 0.243740707755 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0683423948782 0.0831039109588 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0552105897395 0.0758088955206 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12677403568 0.150359130593 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0481135904693 0.0667264976115 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.1392134831 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.8420337079 124% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.1743820225 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 12.1639044944 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.06 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 100.480337079 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.