▶ Your Answer :
Both the writer and the lecturer are
talking about offering four working days instead of five days. The writer
insists that this offer is an effective way for increasing company profits,
reducing unemployment rate and improving an individual life quality. However,
the lecturer contradicts the writer's assertion by suggesting counterarguments.
First of all, the lecturer argues that
offering four working days instead of five days will force company to spend
money. This is because if a company employs new staff, they have to spend their
money in training, enlarging office area, purchasing their computers, etc. This
counters what the reading passage explains advantage of reduced working days.
According to the writer, since workers who work four days a week have less
chance to make mistakes thanks to their free time, and company can hire more
staffs by using saved money from reduced salaries, company will gain profit.
Next, the lecturer claims that working for
four days a week will give burden to employees. Whether an employee works for four days
or five days, expectation of a company will be equal. In line with the expectation, they will not
going to hire other new employees. In regards, employees who work for four days a week will feel compulsory. This rebuts the reading passage's idea:
decreased mandatory working time will bring chances of job opportunities.
Lastly, the lecturer asserts that reduced
working time increases the risks of unfair situations to people who work four
days a week. It is clear that a worker who works for five days a week will be
seemed as diligent and devoteful. Thus, they will gather all chances to be
promoted and dodge the risk of unemployment when economic downturn comes. This
refutes the reading passage's idea that working for four days a week will
improve an individual's life quality by spending own pastime.
|