Long story short: I got a perfect 9.0 in the speaking and a 6.0 in the writing part of the IELTS. I need a 6.5 in each component or a 94 from TOEFL with 24 in writing.
As a result, yesterday I decided to proceed with the TOEFL. Would anyone be so kind and point flaws or engage in providing a feedback to my essay, I would be more than happy to thank you. It will not be impeccable, though - it is the first time that I write this type of essay.
Here is the integrated essay of mine:
The reading passage states that many employees are willing to work less days in a week than what is considered a typical work, and that they are eager accept a decreased salary in exchange for an additional free day a week. The passage claims that the four-day workweeks are going to contribute to the economy in a positive manner. Conversely, the lecturer undermines all the arguments provided by the passage.
The lecturer is of the opinion that various factors such as additional training, scarce free office space and the need for more medical benefits will make it impossible for the companies to increase their profitability. What is more, such four-day workweeks will force many businesses to hire new staff, which will be offered medical benefits. From what lecturer says, it is clear that the costs of such benefits do not diminish along with the reduction of working days, a fact which would raise companies expenses. The passage states otherwise, claiming that adding new staff would not necessarily have to entail additional expenses.
According to the passage, the country as a whole would enjoy a reduction in unemployment rate as the workload would have to be spread; therefore, new vacancies would arise. The lecturer refutes the arguments, pointing the following flaws: since hiring new employees is costly, the companies would avoid this by forcing their employees to work overtime, and, what is more, the employees would be expected to do the same job in less time.
From the lecturers point of view, the shortened workweek would not ameliorate lifestyles of the employees. Contrary to what is written in the passage, speaker says that such workweek would yield to reduced job security among workers; they will be the first to be made redundant in the wake of a wave of layoffs.![]()
As a result, yesterday I decided to proceed with the TOEFL. Would anyone be so kind and point flaws or engage in providing a feedback to my essay, I would be more than happy to thank you. It will not be impeccable, though - it is the first time that I write this type of essay.
Here is the integrated essay of mine:
The reading passage states that many employees are willing to work less days in a week than what is considered a typical work, and that they are eager accept a decreased salary in exchange for an additional free day a week. The passage claims that the four-day workweeks are going to contribute to the economy in a positive manner. Conversely, the lecturer undermines all the arguments provided by the passage.
The lecturer is of the opinion that various factors such as additional training, scarce free office space and the need for more medical benefits will make it impossible for the companies to increase their profitability. What is more, such four-day workweeks will force many businesses to hire new staff, which will be offered medical benefits. From what lecturer says, it is clear that the costs of such benefits do not diminish along with the reduction of working days, a fact which would raise companies expenses. The passage states otherwise, claiming that adding new staff would not necessarily have to entail additional expenses.
According to the passage, the country as a whole would enjoy a reduction in unemployment rate as the workload would have to be spread; therefore, new vacancies would arise. The lecturer refutes the arguments, pointing the following flaws: since hiring new employees is costly, the companies would avoid this by forcing their employees to work overtime, and, what is more, the employees would be expected to do the same job in less time.
From the lecturers point of view, the shortened workweek would not ameliorate lifestyles of the employees. Contrary to what is written in the passage, speaker says that such workweek would yield to reduced job security among workers; they will be the first to be made redundant in the wake of a wave of layoffs.