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 benefits.
For the country as a whole, one of the primary benefits of offering this option to employees is that it would reduce unemployment rate. 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 article states that about a new policy to give workers option to change their work time from 5 day to 4 day and provides three reasons of support. However, The professor in the lecture cast serious doubt on the passage by using a number of points that are contrary to each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading claims that 4 day working can Benefits Company by gaining more profit because it cause employees make fewer costly errors. The professor refutes this point by saying that it force companies to spend more. He states that in this situation companies hire new workers and so they should spend other costs like health care, office space and computers.
Second, the article posits that more employment will cause to reduce unemployment rate. However, the professor describes that hiring is costly and company may not afford it. According to the professor it is better to use current workers in overtime and make pleasant them.
Third, the reading makes it clear that this plan can increase the life quality and standard of the workers. The professor opposes this point by explaining that this option can provide some risk for the employees. We also learn that working shorter can reduce the working quality of employees by giving a sense of losing their job to them.
In the light of foregoing, the writer's contention cannot be taken to be correct because, as it is shown in the lecture, it rests on a number of unsubstantiated premises all of which can be challenged in one way or another.
Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
---|---|---|---|
2020-01-27 | aymenhamrouni | 88 | view |
2020-01-06 | Sally Bassem | 78 | view |
2020-01-06 | S M Naimul Mamun | 85 | view |
2019-12-18 | tuktuki1311 | 71 | view |
2019-12-06 | sandeshbhandari2 | 85 | view |
- 3- Nowadays, food has become easier to prepare. Has this change improved the way people live? 90
- It has recently been announced that a new high school may be built in your community. Do you support or oppose this plan? Why? Use specific reasons and details in your answer. 70
- 32. Which one is better: enjoy money when you earn it or save it for some time in the future? 70
- Some people spend their entire lives in one place. Others move a number of times throughout their lives, looking for a better job, house, community, or even climate. Which do you prefer: staying in one place or moving in search of another place? 70
- Some people think that human needs for farmland, housing, and industry are more important than saving land for endangered animals. Do you agree or disagree with this point of view? Why or why not? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 30
The professor in the lecture cast serious doubt
The professor in the lecture casts serious doubt
can Benefits Company
can Benefit Company
because it cause employees make
because it causes employees make
it force companies to spend
it forces companies to spend
and make pleasant them.
and make them pleasant .
flaws:
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
The correct pattern:
para 1: introduction
para 2: doubt 1
para 3: doubt 2
para 4: doubt 3
Don't need a conclusion paragraph.
Read sample essays from ETS:
http://www.testbig.com/users/toeflwritingmaster
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 18 in 30
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 12 12
No. of Words: 261 250
No. of Characters: 1223 1200
No. of Different Words: 147 150
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.019 4.2
Average Word Length: 4.686 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.393 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 93 80
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 65 60
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 31 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 21 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.75 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.683 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.583 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.35 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.653 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.099 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 4