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
Since the dawn of the humanity, working was one of the fundamental part of life, as it provide myriad needs in variety of sectors. However, in today's modern age, human laborer alter their place to machine, therefore people have the choice to lessen their work time, and provide more private time for their interested activities. However, the question which arises here, is that whether it is better to dedicate five days a week to work with fewer hours or just working three days with longer time each day. There is an active controversy over whether which one is more delightful and has more advantageous. Due to the less working day per week, most people, absolutely, tend to choose the second option. Nevertheless, I personally adhere to the fact that less working day could not necessarily lead to have better performance and make us a joyful life. The following paragraphs will elaborate more on this issue.
To begin with, maybe it seems to be easier to work for less days per week but if we look more concentrated, we could realize its drawbacks. Employees' capacity to work is definitely limited. To be specific, the average hours which an employee could dedicate to work is 7 to 8 hours per day. Although we are able to work even 10 hours but our perfect performance occur within the first 7 and 8 hours of work; above this amount of time the performance diminishes. As a case in point, I would like to recount a personal story. I had worked for a private company for two years. There, I had the option to work 10 hours per day in order to reduce my work days of each week. After three months, I realize baring all of these laborious tasks are out of my ability. Thus, I changed my schedule, tiring of overwhelming day time-work. Then, I became more efficient in all the performances from typing to sending mails.
In another view-point, this could not be also considered as a sensible decision for companies. If they decrease their employees' day work, they have to compensate the remaining days of week with other work forces. Therefore, they should provide more people with teaching and training, due to have adequate expertise for multifarious tasks that already exist in a big company. As another negative point, I could mention the more salary that the company should pay to the extra employees. For instance let us consider the example of China, an overpopulated and recently developed country. In this country, with tremendous size of labor force, the government decided to impel both work plan for two groups of employees in governmental companies. The result was clearly undesirable. Employees has shown a very bad performance in concentration on their work at the beginning of the weeks, being distant from their responsibilities for too prolonged time. Their performance during the work-day diminished and lots of errors were occurred. Due to all these negatively responses to new plan, the country decided to go back to the fist type of working days.
Drawing upon the aforementioned reasons, although, at first glimpse, it could look like very exciting and desirable to work fewer hours, the demerits of working more in each day in order to lessen the work-day per week sugar-coat its merits. Not only, does it reduce the quality of employees' performance and function during work but also it could damage a company performance as a whole by increasing costs and decreasing the income.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 56, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun days is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...maybe it seems to be easier to work for less days per week but if we look more conce...
^^^^
Line 7, column 435, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...easing costs and decreasing the income.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, look, may, nevertheless, second, so, then, therefore, thus, for instance, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 15.1003584229 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 9.8082437276 112% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 13.8261648746 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.0286738351 63% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 45.0 43.0788530466 104% => OK
Preposition: 84.0 52.1666666667 161% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.0752688172 161% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2834.0 1977.66487455 143% => OK
No of words: 581.0 407.700716846 143% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.87779690189 4.8611393121 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90957651803 4.48103885553 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74916443483 2.67179642975 103% => OK
Unique words: 293.0 212.727598566 138% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.50430292599 0.524837075471 96% => OK
syllable_count: 890.1 618.680645161 144% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 14.0 9.59856630824 146% => OK
Article: 8.0 3.08781362007 259% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 7.0 3.51792114695 199% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.94265232975 202% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 20.6003584229 141% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.1344086022 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.9208172057 48.9658058833 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.724137931 100.406767564 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0344827586 20.6045352989 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.06896551724 5.45110844103 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 11.8709677419 101% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.88709677419 246% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.354291242869 0.236089414692 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0999677323337 0.076458572812 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0772843273172 0.0737576698707 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.242314444596 0.150856017488 161% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0586664985523 0.0645574589148 91% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 11.7677419355 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 58.1214874552 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 10.1575268817 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.02 10.9000537634 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.01818996416 103% => OK
difficult_words: 134.0 86.8835125448 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.002688172 140% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.0537634409 99% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.247311828 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.