▶ Your Answer : In the lecture, the professor casts doubt on the reading's insistence, presenting three grounds. Specifically, the lecturer does not concur with the author's argument that reducing working hours by 20 percent would benefit three constituents of the United States: companies, the economy, and individual workers. ^ To begin with, the speaker elaborates that companies' profits will be decreased if they reduce employees' working hours. Hiring new workers requires the companies to spend more on computers, office spaces, education, and medical benefits. This opinion is in contrast to the reading's argument that a four-day workweek is economical. ^ Additionally, the lecturer insists that the policy would not reduce unemployment rates. Since hiring new workers is costly, companies may ask their laborers to conduct five-day workloads in four days a week. Then, it is impossible to create additional jobs, and present workers will be unpleasant. This argument goes against the writer's claim that the solution is good for the economy as a whole. ^ Lastly, the speaker asserts that employees may not welcome the four-day week policy. Although they can have much free time, the workers' jobs would be unstable. Also, it will be more difficult to get advanced or promoted since companies prefer workers who can work five days a week. This counterargument opposes the author's claim that employees would want the policy to be implemented.
Good (24–30)
첫번째 본문에서, reading's 라고 덧붙이면 작은 디테일이지만 글이 더 명확해집니다.
전체적으로 내용 정리 잘 하셨고 문법도 괜찮습니다.
수고하셨습니다~ |