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.
There is a very interesting question that whether it is more comfortable to have a job required you to work three days for long hours or it is more enjoyable to work five days for short hours. Many people are in favor of the former. But I propose the latter.
First, time will be more flexible to work five days for short hours. Due to the long working hour the job required, there is no time to arrange extra activities. People under such inflexibility have to work three days whole heartedly without doing extra things. However, those who can work five days for long hours allocate their time appropriately. For instance, Jessie worked three days for a long time, her day was full of working, she was fed up with her life, then she works five days for a long time. Eventually she is able to make other arrangement such as playing sports, going to parks and so on. Despite the heavy working pressure, she can do what she wants to do during the weekdays. Unlike three days long time working, each day will be arranged properly and scientifically, with working and spare time activities.
Second, a better energy distribution is very essential especially to those high intensity workers. If a work costs a lot of energy and makes you exhausted. As a result, it affects daily life and may disrupt you daily routine. But working five days for short hours can save more energy, and it will not mess you life and you could rest, in order to get a fulfilled physical state. Better energy distribution leads to high efficiency of working. For example, a friend of mine named Susan, She is a bank manager that works five days a week for a very short hours. She has a energy cost job that needs her to concentrate a lot in order to improve her working efficiency. She worked three days for a long time before he felt that that kind of working mode disorder her daily routine. Finally she works five days for shorter time. The thing is that she does a great job.
Thus five days short time working leads to a better energy distribution and the creation of leisure time. For a highly effective working outcome, five days short time job is more scientific and proper.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 407, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ysical state. Better energy distribution leads to high efficiency of working. For...
^^
Line 5, column 556, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'hour'?
Suggestion: hour
...works five days a week for a very short hours. She has a energy cost job that needs h...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 571, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
... a week for a very short hours. She has a energy cost job that needs her to conce...
^
Line 5, column 781, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
...orking mode disorder her daily routine. Finally she works five days for shorter time. T...
^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...e thing is that she does a great job. Thus five days short time working leads to a...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, may, second, so, then, thus, for example, for instance, kind of, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 15.1003584229 93% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 9.8082437276 82% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 13.8261648746 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.0286738351 63% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 36.0 43.0788530466 84% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 52.1666666667 67% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.0752688172 87% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1774.0 1977.66487455 90% => OK
No of words: 389.0 407.700716846 95% => OK
Chars per words: 4.56041131105 4.8611393121 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44106776838 4.48103885553 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4383301057 2.67179642975 91% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 212.727598566 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.462724935733 0.524837075471 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 555.3 618.680645161 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.51630824373 92% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 9.59856630824 83% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.86738351254 161% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.6003584229 112% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 20.1344086022 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.7137679507 48.9658058833 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 77.1304347826 100.406767564 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.9130434783 20.6045352989 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.17391304348 5.45110844103 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.5376344086 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 11.8709677419 101% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.88709677419 143% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.482839836775 0.236089414692 205% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.159121340987 0.076458572812 208% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.136626150836 0.0737576698707 185% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.360612216875 0.150856017488 239% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0968536813088 0.0645574589148 150% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.5 11.7677419355 72% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 72.16 58.1214874552 124% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.2 10.1575268817 71% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 8.87 10.9000537634 81% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.03 8.01818996416 88% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 86.8835125448 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.002688172 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.0537634409 84% => OK
text_standard: 7.0 10.247311828 68% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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: 61.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.5 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.