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.
Both the author of the passage and the speaker of the lecture discuss about the possible impacts of turning five working days of a employee to four days. The author claims that four-day work will result in improving the overall economy, more profits to the individual company and more quality life of an employee, while the speech deliverer counter argues that it will result in a negative way in above three mentioned sectors.
First of all, the author of the article claims that, employer/organization would gain more profits. In evidence to the statement, he shows that individual pay would be reduced by 20% and hiring more staffs would also result in 20% decrease in salary. In addition, the author also assumed that reducing work day will result in employee alertness and rest which will lead less error in work. However, the lecturer denied these as he presents counter-logic that total cost of the company would increase as more training and medical cares are needed to ensure. Moreover, extra equipment like computers etc. are required to purchase for new employees as well.
Secondly, the author of the passage assumes that it will reduce unemployment rate as more employees are getting opportunities to enroll. However, the speaker repudiates the claim as he believes that it will not create a chance for new employees as it is costly, rather it would force the existing employees to complete the tasks in four days by enforcing overtime and other approaches.
Finally, the author believes that it will ensure quality life of employees. However the lecturer casts doubt on that, as he thinks it will decrease their job stability and downgrade their promotion way, as 5 day employees might get preferences over them. Specially, they may even loose their jobs in economic downtown.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 130, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...impacts of turning five working days of a employee to four days. The author claim...
^
Line 1, column 377, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a negative way" with adverb for "negative"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...erer counter argues that it will result in a negative way in above three mentioned sectors. Firs...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 76, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
... will ensure quality life of employees. However the lecturer casts doubt on that, as he...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 280, Rule ID: LOOSE_LOSE[2]
Message: Did you mean 'lose' (= miss, waste, suffer the loss etc.)?
Suggestion: lose
...ces over them. Specially, they may even loose their jobs in economic downtown.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, well, while, in addition, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 5.04856512141 297% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1497.0 1373.03311258 109% => OK
No of words: 297.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0404040404 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15134772569 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68169928782 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.555555555556 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 460.8 419.366225166 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.1554957258 49.2860985944 138% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.153846154 110.228320801 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8461538462 21.698381199 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.46153846154 7.06452816374 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.279740670981 0.272083759551 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.100708119795 0.0996497079465 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0900756301694 0.0662205650399 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.181300214053 0.162205337803 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0283356934581 0.0443174109184 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.25 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.77 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.