托福综合写作模板

综合写作模板：

According to the lecture and passage, there is a conflict of practices/hypothesis/opinions about whether the four-day working practice would benefit the economy, companies and employees. In the reading, the author points out three major aspects to support benefits brought by this new working practice, which, however, is refuted by the following lecture.

First of all, contrary to the perspective in the reading, the professor assumes this shorter working practice would not increase profits of company,which totally disagrees with the statement in the reading. The evidence from the professor is that the four-day working practice would allow companies to spend much more money than before; specifically, hiring more employees w ill cost greater volume of money for training,medical benefits, which would be same no matter employees working for four or five days. What is more, the company would also spend more money on the more office space and computers. Thus, the counter-evidence proposed by the professor would totally refute the statement in the reading.

In addition, unlike the statement in the reading, the speaker in the lecture believes the four-day working style, to large extent, cannot reduce the unemployment rate, which is fully contradictive in the reading passage. It is because the professor argues that hiring new employees would be very costly, more important, the company holds other options such as working overtime to make up the difference. Worse,the company would even raise their working expectation to ask their four-day employees to do the work as the same amount they used to do in five days.As a result, there is no additional job position to be created and the current working mood would be unpleasan t. Consequently, the statement in reading is totally challenged by the lecture. Lastly, different from the perspective in the reading passage, the professor also asserts that the quality of employees’ life would not be improved due to the shorter working practice, which contradicts the view in the reading. It is due to the fact from the lecture that the four-day workweek may undermine the job stability and harm the development of caree r. To demonstrate that, those employees would lose their jobs during the economic downturn, and can be ignored by the promotion which is given to employees with five working days. Thus, the point of view in the passage cannot be persuasive due to the evidence stated in the listening.

In conclusion, based on the discussion in the lecture, it is very clearly to say that the professor makes the persuasive argument toward this issue to totally challenge ideas in the passage with many inaccuracies.