The article asserts that working in a four-day workweek setting is extremely beneficial for both companies and employees. However, the lecturer completely disagrees with this idea and rejects all three reasons mentioned in the passage. His opposite explanations are elaborated in the following.
The article asserts that working in a four-day workweek setting is extremely beneficial for both companies and employees. However, the lecturer completely disagrees with this idea and rejects all three reasons mentioned in the passage. His opposite explanations are elaborated in the following.
First of all, the passage reckons that companies will benefit from well-rested employees, which will decrease the errors related to their works, and employers are not necessarily going to pay more salaries because the cumulative payments would be the same. On the other hand, the professor claims that due to training and medical costs, the profit of employers will be reduced insomuch as health-related expenses are the same for an employee either working for four days or five. Moreover, they are going to need more office space and computers.
Secondly, the text explains that the United States will benefit from this strategy since more individuals will have jobs, and unemployment rate will decrease. Also, there will be no overworked workers, but the speaker says that as hiring new clerks is expensive, firms will ask their team members to work overtime instead of adding new parttime ones. Furthermore, they will raise their expectations and ask four-day employees to accomplish the same amount of tasks as five-day ones. This will definitely make jobs more unpleasant, and there will not be more additional vacant jobs.
Tertiary, the essay upholds that a person can have quality time with their family and friends in their pastime due to working less in a week. However, the lecturer thinks this notion is risky and may reduce the quality of life. Working less in a week can reduce job stability, and individuals cannot develop their professional skills in their careers; therefore, they are the first people who may lose their jobs in a downturn. Moreover, employers are more prone to promote the ones for management positions who are working fulltime due to supervision reasons.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 5.04856512141 357% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1679.0 1373.03311258 122% => OK
No of words: 319.0 270.72406181 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26332288401 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22617688928 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66913127264 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 145.348785872 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.579937304075 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 513.0 419.366225166 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.51434878587 330% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.6649659609 49.2860985944 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.928571429 110.228320801 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7857142857 21.698381199 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.21428571429 7.06452816374 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.263488445258 0.272083759551 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.10640851385 0.0996497079465 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.143054801804 0.0662205650399 216% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.235901954417 0.162205337803 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.278827509958 0.0443174109184 629% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.3589403974 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.23 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 63.6247240618 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.