By pointing out a four-day workweek, the lecturer completely challenges the reading passage.

To begin with, the reading passage asserts that the company offers their employees a four-day workweek would benefit the economy. However, the lecturer maintains that this policy forces the company to spend a lot more money. Thus, it will not increase the company's profits or hire more staff. If hiring more staff, the company has to pay their training fee, medical benefit, etc. Meanwhile it also has to offer more office space and computers. As a result, this would cut in to the profits. Therefore, the lecturer directing challenges the reading passage.

Moreover, the reading passage claims that a four-day workweek would make more jobs available. However, the lecturer points out that it is costly to hire more employees. But people who are now working there will feel burden on their shoulder, so they have to work overtime, meet the need of rising expectation. In other words, they have to do 5 days' work in 4 days. This could probably makes them unpleasant, and no addition job opportunity is created. Hence, this is the second part the lecturer denies.

Finally, the reading passage alleges that working 4 days a week would make employees more free time. The lecturer refutes this point by stating that this increases the risk of losing job. Company is willing to employee those who can work 5 days a week, thus their life quality will not be better. For this reason, the reading passage is again proved false by the lecturer.

Consequently, the contents displayed in the reading passage are entirely rejected by the lecturer.

4月27号就考试了~还是很着急的~谢谢大家！我一定尽力回报！~

Later I will read it.