These studies never seem to have the troubles that other scientific studies have, repeat-ability, outliers or biases at picking companies. If you pick the best of a wider selection, the result is to be better of course, but even then, some companies should screw up just because - the noise of a complex world, where good employees might not overcome bad management or bad circumstances.

No, I'd parse that as being 2/5. The difference is, you didn't say "40% more sick days are taken on Monday and Friday", which would imply (M+F) = 1.4(T+W+T) -> 58% of sick days taken on Monday and Friday, and 42% of sick days taken on the remaining days.

You seem to be overlooking the word "more" in "35% more likely". It's not "35% chance".

You brain is very good at filling in absent words to change the logical content of a statement.

Is your argument that this interpretation is numerically wrong or that you don't like the phrasing? It matches my read numerically.

Still post hoc fallacy.

Edit: I'd->is