▶ Your Answer : Both the reading passage and the speaker are
discussing about whether a four-hour workweek would be beneficial. The article
insists that if the four-hour workweek is executed, it will have positive
effect on companies, national economy, and on employees. However, the speaker strongly
disagrees with what the article says.
First,
the reading passage says a four-hour workweek would be beneficial for the
company for it would have less workers who are prone to make errors due to
overworking. And this would bring the company an increased profit without
having to invest to other resources. But in the lecture, the speaker disputes
the idea. He insists that the company would have to spend more money on training
programs and office stuffs. Thus it will have harmful effect on company profit.
Next,
according to the article, a four-hour workweek will also good for the country’s
economy because it would reduce the unemployment rate by hiring more workers to
compensate for undone workloads. However, according to the lecturer, that would
not be the case. Since the companies would expect existing workers to work
harder and not hiring more employees, the unemployment rate will not be
decreased.
Finally,
the article and the lecturer have contradictory opinions about a four-hour
workweek’s benefits for employees. The reading passage demonstrates that employees
would be able to enhance their quality of lives by sparing more free time and
using that time for their self-development. The speaker rejects this idea. He
says employees who choose to work 4 days a week would lose their chances for
promotions and even worse, they would be the first to lose their jobs in the
time of economic recession.
점수: 27 지적할 부분이 없는 통합형 에세이입니다. 통합형 에세이에서 가장 중요한 부분을 차지하는 것은 한 주제에 대하여서 서로 다른 정보를 가지고 있는 리딩과 리스닝이 어떻게 비교하고 반박을 하는 것인지를 보는 것 입니다. 지금 이 에세이 같은 경우에 있어서는 리딩이나 리스닝 둘 다 서로 구체적으로 자신의 주장을 잘 보여주고 있습니다. 각 단락의 구체적 설명을 통해서 각 페시지의 견해가 무엇인지 잘 알 수 잇었습니다. 수고많으셨습니다. |