Integrated writing —four-day workweek
Reading
In the United States, employees typically work five days a week for eight hours each day. However, many employees want to work a four-day week and are willing to accept less pay in order to do so. A mandatory policy requiring companies to offer their employees the option of working a four-day workweek for four-fifths (80 percent) of their normal pay would benefit the economy as a whole as well as the individual companies and the employees who decided to take the option.
The shortened workweek would increase company profits because employees would feel more rested and alert, and as a result, they would make fewer costly errors in their work. Hiring more staff to ensure that the same amount of work would be accomplished would not result in additional payroll costs because four-day employees would only be paid 80 percent of the normal rate. In the end, companies would have fewer overworked and error-prone employees for the same money, which would increase company benefits.
For the country as a whole, one of the primary benefits of offering this option to employees is that it would reduce unemployment rate. If many full-time employees started working fewer hours, some of their workload would have to be shifted to others. Thus, for every four employees who went on an 80 percent week, a new employee could be hired at the 80 percent rate.
Finally, the option of a four-day workweek would be better for individual employees. Employees who could afford a lower salary in exchange for more free time could improve the quality of their lives by spending the extra time with their families, pursuing private interests or enjoying leisure activities.
Listening
Offering employees the option of a four-day workweek won’t affect the company profits, economic conditions or the lives of employees in the ways the reading suggests.
First, offering a four-day workweek will probably force companies to spend more, possibly a lot more. Adding new workers means putting much more money into providing training and medical benefits. Remember the costs of things like health benefits can be the same whether an employee works four days or five. And having more employees also requires more office space and more computers. These additional costs would quickly cut into company profits.
Second, with respect to overall employment, it doesn’t follow that once some employees choose a four-day workweek; many more jobs will become available. Hiring new workers is costly, as I argued a moment ago. And companies have other options. They might just choose to ask their employees to work overtime to make up the difference. Worse, companies might raise expectations. They might start to expect that their four-day employees can do the same amount of work they used to do in five days. If this happens, then no additional jobs will be created and current jobs will become more unpleasant.
Finally, while a four-day workweek offers employees more free time to invest in their personal lives, it also presents some risks that could end up reducing their quality of life. Working a shorter week can decrease employees’ job stability and harm their chances for advancing their careers. Four-day employees are likely to be the first to lose their jobs during an economic downturn. They may also be passed over for promotions because companies might prefer to have five-day employees in management positions to ensure continuous coverage and consistent supervision for the entire workweek
The reading and the lecturer are both about a policy, which is offering four-day workweek instead of five-day workweek to employees. The author of the reading believes that job for four-day a week would be helpful for economy, company and employee. The lecture casts doubt on the claim made in the reading passage. He thinks that offering employees four-day week will not enhance economic conditions, company's profits and quality of life.
First of all,the author claims that company profits will improve by this policy. He believes that company will have to pay less if employees are doing work for four-days instead of five-days. This point is challenged by the lecturer. He says that company have to spend more or alot more since then company would hire new employees and it would be very expensive in terms of training, medical benefits for new employees.
Secondly, the author states that, to make use of this policy, it might reduce unemployment in the country. He suggests that the company have to hire new workers for the work which generally reduced by this policy. The lecturer rebuts this argument. He argues that, then there would be decrease in stablity. He elaborates on this by mentioning the employees who work for five days will be more valuable than the employee who work for four days in management jobs.
Finally the author mentions that this policy might improve quality of life of employees. He is of the opinion that the employee can spend his time with family and in the things which interests him most. The lecturer on the other hand states that this will make employee inefficient. He puts forth the idea that it might harm their capabilities in a way, if they want to do work in challenging situations then it gonna be dificult for them.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 428, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ons companys profits and quality of life First of allthe author claims that compa...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 454, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ho work for four days in management jobs Finally the author mentions that this po...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
...rk for four days in management jobs Finally the author mentions that this policy mi...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 435, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tions then it gonna be dificult for them
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, second, secondly, then, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 5.04856512141 257% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 22.412803532 165% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1439.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 302.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 4.76490066225 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1687104957 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.35027738374 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 140.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.46357615894 0.540411800872 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 442.8 419.366225166 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.23620309051 12% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 1.0 13.0662251656 8% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 302.0 21.2450331126 1422% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 0.0 49.2860985944 0% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 1439.0 110.228320801 1305% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 302.0 21.698381199 1392% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 80.0 7.06452816374 1132% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 4.45695364238 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.24568722482 0.272083759551 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.24568722482 0.0996497079465 247% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.157686816903 0.162205337803 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0414805343891 0.0443174109184 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 152.0 13.3589403974 1138% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: -226.59 53.8541721854 -421% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 0.0 5.55761589404 0% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 119.9 11.0289183223 1087% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 11.81 12.2367328918 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 21.28 8.42419426049 253% => Dale chall readability score is high.
difficult_words: 51.0 63.6247240618 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 53.0 10.7273730684 494% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 122.8 10.498013245 1170% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 53.0 11.2008830022 473% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.