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 reading passage discuses the advantages of reducing working hour of employees in the United States. In contrast, the lecturer refutes that the rationale given by the author are not convincing, and totally disagrees with the writer.
According to the author, the company can make profit if they reduce the working days in a week. However, the lecturer cast doubt on this. He says even though the salary of the employees would also reduce with reduced working days, but the company has to spend even more money instead of making profit. He also adds that providing training, medical benefits, more office space for new workers require more money to spend on employees which cuts from the profit.
Second, the author claims that as working days will be reduced, it also will create more job vacancy or reduce the unemployment problem. On the other hand, the speaker denies this idea by saying that it is very much possible that the company might raise their expectations. They can want to get same amount of work with four days that the employees do with five days. In addition, the speaker also asserts that the company can ask the employees to do overtime; if it would happen, then no extra job opportunities would be created. This totally contradicts with writer’s idea.
Finally, the author mentions that employees can provide enough time with their family which upgrades their standard of lives. Conversely, the speaker points out that reducing working hour and providing extra time with family might cause more risk to their job, as the company prefers workers who can provide more incessant time on their work, the worker who would do less become sufferer. At the same time it would be difficult for them to get promotion. Instead, they might loss their job if economic downturn happen.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 519, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... their job if economic downturn happen.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, finally, however, if, second, so, then, as to, in addition, in contrast, on the other hand
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 : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => 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: 1499.0 1373.03311258 109% => OK
No of words: 303.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94719471947 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17215713816 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.34914422302 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 145.348785872 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.528052805281 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 450.9 419.366225166 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.0657788468 49.2860985944 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.9333333333 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.53333333333 7.06452816374 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => 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: 0.260994907988 0.272083759551 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0897319043481 0.0996497079465 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0789391859455 0.0662205650399 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.161144679966 0.162205337803 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0413791869415 0.0443174109184 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 13.3589403974 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.43 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.81 8.42419426049 93% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.