Both the reading passage and lecturer discuss about four-day working policy. While the reading passage(s) argues that four-day working will be beneficial for both employers and employees, the lecturer casts doubt on this idea.
First, the lecturer contends that four-day working policy will not increase company benefit. He says that this forces the company to spend more money on training and medical insurance, and it also requires more facility. This contradicts the reading passage's claim that the shortened workweek would increase company benefits. (좋아요. 조금만 더 길었으면 더 좋을 것 같아요~)
Next, the lecturer(계속 lecturer라고 쓰시기 보다는 다른 단어로 바꿔가며 다양한 어휘를 사용해주시는 게 좋아요~ speaker나 professor라고 해주시던지, 또는 The point made in the lecture라고 해주시면 좋겠습니다) argues that company would require the same amount of workload from their employees as before even if their employees work less fewer days than before. He says that the companies would not hire new staffs to fill the gap because hiring process costs a lot causes cost.Instead, the employees would be working have to work overtime to do the leftover work. This opposes the reading passage's claim that the four-day working policy it would reduce unemployment rate.
Finally, the lecturer asserts that this is not a good idea idea for individual(s) workers because they may lose their job security. This is because the four-day working staffs may lose their job when there is lay-off. Also, they may not have a chance of promotion. This contradicts the reading passage's idea that this would give them increase more free time and could improve the quality of their lives.
Essay 0-30 score scale
Good (21~26)
총평:
1. 전반적으로 잘 쓰신 것 같습니다. 에세이 구성도 좋고, 리스닝에서 주장하는 근거들을 리딩과 잘 비교하여 써주신 것 같습니다. 내용, 특히 리스닝 내용을 디테일하게 잘 써주셨고, 그에 따라 에세이 길이도 적당한 것 같아요^^
2. 위에서 말씀드린대로 같은 단어를 쓰기보다는 여러 단어를 번갈아가며 다양하게 써주시면 더 좋을 것 같습니다. '주장'이라는 뜻을 가진 단어나 '반대'라는 단어 등을 다양하게 써주셨는데, 좋아요~!
3. 문법 오류 체크해주시길 바랍니다. 사소한 오류는 줄여주세요.
수고많으셨습니다 :)