Technically, the article "Why it's time to ditch the 9 to 5 work day" is structured around logic, using social science studies to support its argument that a shorter workweek raises worker productivity. However, in addition to an emphasis on logic, it is also structured as a good news story, with a compelling lede (opening) and the distillation of social science data into clear, readable prose.

The article doesn't begin with data but with an interesting anecdote meant to be relatable to readers and draw them into the rest of the story. The opening focuses on a popular sitcom, The Office, and argues that its seemingly absurd result, high productivity despite a "bumbling" manager, may not be all that far-fetched. The article then moves to a Microsoft experiment in Japan with a three-day workweek, offering the "astonishing" statistic that worker productivity increased 40% with the shorter week. The author backs this result up by pointing to two similar studies, one from 2018 and one going back to World War I.

The article focuses on the "fatigue factor" as why a shorter workweek might increase productivity. It then moves to ways companies might implement that shorter week in countries that are known for overwork, such as Japan and the US. Finally, the article wraps up in a satisfying way with a summary of its key points.

By using a relatable anecdote early on, the writer bonds emotionally with the reader, while citing three studies relatively early in the piece raises the author's credibility, and a summation ending offers a strong sense of closure.

As for commentary, the simple language makes this article accessible as does the clear, logical organization. Context is important, too, and since this article was written, widespread work-at-home has amply reinforced the idea that workers don't need to spend five days a week in an office to be productive but perhaps do better in more flexible environments.