Both the reading passage and the lecturer are being controversial argument whether work-at-home system is beneficial or disadvantage. While the reading passage shows its optimistic view about this new system, the lecturer brings up his several points to oppose to the article. To start with, the reading passage supports the work-at-home system by stating that it not only allows the employer to save the money, but also promotes employees to be more productive. However, the lecturer directly contrasts the article’s ideas by saying that the results of this system is opposite to the reading passage’s assertion. Firstly, according to the lecturer’s example, when employees work at their homes, they take excessive break and waste their time rather than working since no one is monitoring them. Eventually, this leads to the dramatically fallen productive rates. The lecturer also contradicts the passage’s argument by mention that the wasted money due to this decreased production outnumbers the money saved from this system. For another, the article also gives the benefits of work-at-home system such as happier family relationships and more time on personal lives for the employees. Also, the reading passage brings up the facts about employees’ allowance not to commute. However, the lecturer casts his doubts on this reading’s points. The first contradiction is this newly system would make workers depressed since there are no interaction with the outer society except for their families. This can lower their interest in working, which will bring negative results to their companies. Moreover, not commuting would provoke the employees to find themselves mentally unhealthy. To conclude, although the reading passage is positive toward the work-at-home system, the lecturer asserts that it is prudent not to adopt that system considering the huge disadvantages this new system will bring. |