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 inorder 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 morestaff 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.
Whether the option of a four-day workweek can benefit things, is the focus of both the writer and the professor. In the writing, three benefits, including company profits, unemployment rates and individual employees, have been elaborated. The professor, however, claims that these benefits are not convincing.
As opposed to the writer's idea that shortened workweek could increase company profits, the professor states that it will reduce the company profits. He advances the theory by saying that it will cost more money to train employees and buy medical benefits. Moreover, there will need more office space and computers, which also reduce profits.
The professor continues to discredit the writing's assertion that the option of the four-day workweek can reduce unemployment rates, by examining the fact that the company may not hire new employees. In detail, he points out that hiring new workers is costly. Therefore, companies may acquire workers to work overtime by giving them the same amount of work.
It is the professor's third argument that this option for employees will reduce their quality of life, which contradicts the view of the writer that this way can improve the quality of workers' lives. To explore deeper, the professor contends that it will be less stable for employees to choose the option, because they may lose jobs firstly and they may not pass over promotion, compared to others who choose a five-day workweek.
An apparent divide exists between the writer and the professor on the option of a four-day workweek.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 19, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...re not convincing. As opposed to the writers idea that shortened workweek could incr...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 42, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writings'' or 'writing's'?
Suggestion: writings'; writing's
...he professor continues to discredit the writings assertion that the option of the four-d...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, however, if, may, moreover, so, therefore, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 5.04856512141 277% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1306.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 249.0 270.72406181 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.24497991968 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.97237131171 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56706626255 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 141.0 145.348785872 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.566265060241 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 388.8 419.366225166 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.23620309051 61% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.3308783925 49.2860985944 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.833333333 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.75 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.83333333333 7.06452816374 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.194455746384 0.272083759551 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0673215022797 0.0996497079465 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0433962575093 0.0662205650399 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.105326593911 0.162205337803 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0310390492157 0.0443174109184 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 13.3589403974 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.94 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => 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.