The article states that a 4-day work week with 10 hours working per day can offer numerous benefits to both businesses and employees; thus, it should be applied. However, the professor explains that although the idea of working 4 days per week can give some benefits, they are not dramatically changed and refutes each of the author’s reasons.
First, the reading claims that a 4-day work week can decrease some expenses including the cost of gas for transportation for the average employee. However, the professor refutes this point by saying that the reduced gas is not dramatic. In other words, he takes a simple calculation that by reducing one day of work, an employee can reduce about $15-20 for the average distance to work of 30 miles. Thus, the employee can save approximately $280 per year. This amount is not high.
Second, the article posits that reducing number of working days will lower the operating costs such as lighting and air conditioner fees. The lecture opposes this point by explaining that this point is totally misguiding. One business day-off would decrease the revenue of business by 20%. In addition, extra time for working in 4 days is in the evening when the business activities are not active. People would not be outside for purchasing products. Therefore, the saving of 280$ per employer might not compensate for the decrease of 20% revenue.
Third, the reading avers that worker will have extra time for family by reducing the number of working day. However, the professor contends that worker will not spend more time with their children because they are at school haft of a weekday. Moreover, by making up extra time for the 4 working days, parents will have to find day-care service for their children. This fee can be very expensive and they will not be happier.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 478, Rule ID: CURRENCY[1]
Message: The currency mark is usually put at the beginning of the number: '$280'.
Suggestion: $280
...sing products. Therefore, the saving of 280$ per employer might not compensate for t...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, moreover, second, so, therefore, third, thus, as for, in addition, such as, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 5.04856512141 297% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1506.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 306.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 4.92156862745 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18244613648 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52423851579 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.529411764706 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 447.3 419.366225166 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.8297271575 49.2860985944 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.5882352941 110.228320801 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.23529411765 7.06452816374 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.27373068433 234% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.260354009146 0.272083759551 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0848447424676 0.0996497079465 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0678000097924 0.0662205650399 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.172549348976 0.162205337803 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0430228589561 0.0443174109184 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.7 13.3589403974 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.96 12.2367328918 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.83 8.42419426049 93% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.