tpo 36

The reading and the lecture are both about four-day week work. Whereas the author of the passage states that there are many advantages, if people started to work a four-day week, the lecturer suggests that a four-day week is not the best option. The speaker casts doubt on the main points in the text by providing three reasons.

First of all, according to the reading, the shortened workweek would increase company profits, for employees who will take this option. However, the speaker disputes this idea by saying that this option will force companies to expand, so businesses will end spending more money on activities such as training, computers, and more space for workers to work. Furthermore, he mentions that companies have to offer health insurance to all their employees whether if they are four-day or five-day week workers, affecting the companies' money.

Secondly, the passage states that one main advantage of offering this option is that this will help to reduce unemployment rates. Nevertheless, the speaker refutes this argument by saying that some companies will ask some of their employees who are working a four-day week to work extra hours. Besides, he points out that some companies are going to make their workers do the same amount of work that they used to do in a five-day week but now in a four-day week.

Finally, the text claims that a four-day workweek would be better for individual employees who are going to enjoy more free time. On the other hand, the lecturer believes that it is true they will probably have more free time but they will be running many risks. Since if the company decided to reduce their people, four-day workers are more probably to get fired.

In conclusion, although the reading and the audio are both about a four-day workweek, the three main points made in the text are effectively challenged by the lecturer.