Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
It is more enjoyable to have a job where you work only three days a week for long hours than to have a job where you work five days a week for shorter hours.
Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
Working time have attracted a great deal of attention since the last two decades. There were a number of different strategies which were adopted in order to take the most advantageous of workers. Some specialists believe that working shorter days with longer hours are more preferable, however, others disagree. In my own perspective I do believe that a job with 3 days of working is absolutely better that the current system of 5-day work. The following paragraphs elaborates my point of view.
First of all, 3-day working system offers workers more time to spend with their families. In fact, one of the most crucial role of a job is to motivate workers in order to reach high level of productivity. In this regard, managers should use different approaches to boost all the workers, engineers, clerks, motivations. My new job is a convincing example of this idea. I am working as a computer engineer in a car company. We work 10 hours a day from Monday to Wednesday. As I see during my relations with other workers, they are completely interesting in their own job and try their best to perform their assigned duties. Beside, a friendly atmosphere can be easily felt in our company in which all people help each other to do their responsibilities because they account themselves as a member of the company. This behavior of all workers originate from their satisfactions of the adequate time which they can spend with their families.
Secondly, this new system of work can decrease the amount of commutes and consequently the city will suffer less air pollution. As a matter of fact, most of the contaminant that can be seen in developed countries are just form the green gases which are produced from cars. If the new system is completely perform in a city it will definitely decrease the amount of cars in the street and thus then the city will be a better place to live. To illustrate this point, scientists have conducted a practical research in the capital of China, one the most polluted city in the work. They allowed cars to be driven on street 3 days of a week for a whole year and after the experiments they measured the amount of greenhouse gasses. The results were amazing, more that 70 percent of the deadly gasses were reduced after just a year. This perfectly demonstrate how the amount of commute can affect our environment.
In sum, above from aforementioned explanation, it is obvious that a 3-day working has myriad advantageous. Two important of them is the increasing of productivity by increasing the workers' free time and also the decreasing of air pollution by decreasing the amount of commutes. That's why I think we should change from a 5-day work to a 4-day work system.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 467, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[2]
Message: You should probably use 'elaborate'.
Suggestion: elaborate
...of 5-day work. The following paragraphs elaborates my point of view. First of all, 3-da...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 306, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'performed'.
Suggestion: performed
...m cars. If the new system is completely perform in a city it will definitely decrease t...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 492, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[3]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'practical research'.
Suggestion: practical research
...e this point, scientists have conducted a practical research in the capital of China, one the most p...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 279, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: That's
...n by decreasing the amount of commutes. Thats why I think we should change from a 5-d...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, thus, i think, in fact, as a matter of fact, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 15.1003584229 119% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 9.8082437276 102% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 13.8261648746 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 43.0788530466 93% => OK
Preposition: 73.0 52.1666666667 140% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.0752688172 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2243.0 1977.66487455 113% => OK
No of words: 467.0 407.700716846 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.80299785867 4.8611393121 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64867537961 4.48103885553 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80865138023 2.67179642975 105% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 212.727598566 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.496788008565 0.524837075471 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 697.5 618.680645161 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 9.59856630824 94% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.6003584229 117% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.1344086022 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.7971934838 48.9658058833 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.4583333333 100.406767564 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4583333333 20.6045352989 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.20833333333 5.45110844103 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.5376344086 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 11.8709677419 126% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88709677419 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.20384588198 0.236089414692 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0632439338948 0.076458572812 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0620825994659 0.0737576698707 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134161358015 0.150856017488 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0567758184902 0.0645574589148 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 11.7677419355 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 58.1214874552 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 10.1575268817 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.56 10.9000537634 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.93 8.01818996416 99% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 86.8835125448 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.002688172 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.0537634409 95% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.247311828 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
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.