Summarise the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they case doubt on specific points made in the reading passage.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 profits. For the country as a whole, one of the primary benefits of offering this option to employees is that it would reduce unemployment rates. 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.
The main idea of both the reading and the lecture is about reducing working days during a week and also due to this decrease companies want to pay a lower salary to their employees. Having this in mind, the author claims that this action could be effective for individuals, firms, and governments. The text provides three arguments to support the aforementioned idea. The lecturer, on the other hand, categorically denies all three reasons, citing that the arguments in the passage are not convincing at all.
First, both the text and the talk discuss the idea of decreasing the days of working in a week. The reading explains that this determination can make a big profit for companies and they can save a lot of money. On the contrary, the speaker claims that reducing the working day have side effect for firms because they have to spend more money on the training of their workers and also the cost of medical for new employees is considered. And also companies not only must increase their space but also have to improve their computers for workers.
Second, both the reading and the lecture is about reducing days of working and the effect of its on the cost of companies and governments. The author in the reading expresses that companies in this new way have to pay 80 percent of the normal rate of salary to their employees and also they can hire more people and decrease the rate of unemployment. However, the lecturer was against the mentioned reason in the text because of the volume of work that workers have to do they have to work in extended hours in order to accomplish their tasks and there is no chance for firms to hire new people.
Eventually, both the author and lecturer explain the new situation in families due to the effect of reducing working days. The text claims that families have more time to spend with each other. However, the professor asserts that people have to work harder and they do not have enough time because of former reason and also together having a lot of risks and it may effects on families life quality.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 377, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'families'' or 'family's'?
Suggestion: families'; family's
...ng a lot of risks and it may effects on families life quality.
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, second, so, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 7.30242825607 246% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 30.3222958057 175% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1693.0 1373.03311258 123% => OK
No of words: 363.0 270.72406181 134% => OK
Chars per words: 4.66391184573 5.08290768461 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3649236973 4.04702891845 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.45446970353 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.426997245179 0.540411800872 79% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 522.0 419.366225166 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.5874013035 49.2860985944 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.928571429 110.228320801 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.9285714286 21.698381199 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.85714285714 7.06452816374 83% => 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 : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.192822929998 0.272083759551 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0770825478054 0.0996497079465 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0524609368634 0.0662205650399 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.131565149456 0.162205337803 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0384354165619 0.0443174109184 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 13.3589403974 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 63.02 53.8541721854 117% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.04 12.2367328918 82% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.62 8.42419426049 90% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.