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 reading passage and the listening discuss about decreasing work days. The reading claims that decreasing work day from five days to four days will benefit the company as well as the employees in three ways. However, the lecturer challenges each of these points.
First of all, the reading asserts that curtailed workweek will increase company profits because employers will able to more attentive for less work and make less mistakes with only 80 percent of the salary. On the other hand, the professor in the lecture contends that decreasing workweek not only decrease the profit of the company but also increase expenses in several ways. According to the professor, the company have to train more people, and there will need more office spaces and the medical bill will also increase with more people.
Second, the reading argues that the country will benefit because there will reduce unemployment as the company will need more people to hire. However, the lecture rebuts this argument. She suggests that hiring new employees is always costly. So, the company might not hire new people instead they ask their employees to do overtime. Thus there will no creation of new jobs and the employees will not get free time as well.
Finally, the passage mentions that, It will be good for the individual employees to short worktime. She notes that they will get more free time and a quality time. Nevertheless, like the two suggestions before, the professor in her lecture proclaims that this recommendation is not feasible because, the company will demand five days work in four days which will increase work load and it will increase the risk of losing the job. She goes on to further state that the company will promote the employees who work five days rather than the employees work four days to ensure consistent supervision in whole week.
In conclusion, the lecturer effectively casts doubt on all the claims and theories presented in the reading.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 158, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun mistakes is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...o more attentive for less work and make less mistakes with only 80 percent of the sa...
^^^^
Line 5, column 334, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...hey ask their employees to do overtime. Thus there will no creation of new jobs and ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, nevertheless, second, so, thus, well, in conclusion, as well as, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 3.0 10.4613686534 29% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 5.04856512141 376% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1644.0 1373.03311258 120% => OK
No of words: 328.0 270.72406181 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.01219512195 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25567506705 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.40652123154 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 145.348785872 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 486.9 419.366225166 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.8425221371 49.2860985944 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.75 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.25 7.06452816374 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 4.33554083885 231% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.35228899589 0.272083759551 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.115309700117 0.0996497079465 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.124033688316 0.0662205650399 187% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.185778583435 0.162205337803 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.136837276605 0.0443174109184 309% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 13.3589403974 93% => 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: 11.78 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.81 8.42419426049 93% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.