The article discusses a serious topic relating to effect of building a team for approaching certain projects and provides three reason of support. However, the professor gave the example of a company who built a team for project and opposes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading passage discusses that in a team, individual member has better chances to shine, to get his contributions and ideas significantly recognized.In contrast, the professor provides information that some of the team members get a free ride. They dont work at all and totally depend on other members. Moreover, when the time of recognition came, the whole team is recognised and no names are named. Clearly a disparity exists between the article and the evidence exhibited by the professor. As a result, we can safely assume that building a team has not much effect on the recognition of individual members.
Second, the article pushes forth the ides that a group can work more quickly in response to the task assigned to it and come with creative ideas. However, the classroom discussion contends that it is difficult for the projects to move quickly if it is worked upon by a team. He states that it takes a lot of time to reach consensus. It requires many meetings to decide how to move ahead. Consequently, we can argue the claim made in argument is not totally correct for all the incidents.
Finally, the reading posits that team members who have a voice in decision making will much feel better carrying their work made out of their decisions than doing the work imposed on them by others. The professor refutes the point by explaining that few members of the group become more influential than others. Even if others make good move, they are ignored. And when the project failed, all of them were blamed. So the members dont feel that much good as suggested by the passage.
In summary, while both the RC passages and classroom discusssion provide interesting information with regards to effect of team for working on a project, a siignificant amount of evidence supports that working with team has poor results on individual team member recognition and speed of working. Therefore, the RC passage fails to justify the claim towards the good effect of making a team for working on a project.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 204, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...fessor gave the example of a company who built a team for project and opposes eac...
^^
Line 2, column 71, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...cusses that in a team, individual member has better chances to shine, to get his ...
^^
Line 2, column 136, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hine, to get his contributions and ideas significantly recognized.In contrast, th...
^^
Line 2, column 162, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: In
...ons and ideas significantly recognized.In contrast, the professor provides inform...
^^
Line 2, column 215, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...the professor provides information that some of the team members get a free ride. They dont...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 262, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... the team members get a free ride. They dont work at all and totally depend on other...
^^^^
Line 4, column 430, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...all of them were blamed. So the members dont feel that much good as suggested by the...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, finally, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, therefore, while, in contrast, in summary, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 30.3222958057 162% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1899.0 1373.03311258 138% => OK
No of words: 389.0 270.72406181 144% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.88174807198 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44106776838 4.04702891845 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6735416254 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 145.348785872 135% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.503856041131 0.540411800872 93% => OK
syllable_count: 587.7 419.366225166 140% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 1.0 0.116997792494 855% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.2350385552 49.2860985944 134% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.9473684211 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4736842105 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.52631578947 7.06452816374 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 4.19205298013 167% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 4.33554083885 277% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.395702214458 0.272083759551 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.105425572295 0.0996497079465 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0756842113018 0.0662205650399 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.210999375651 0.162205337803 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0575151286684 0.0443174109184 130% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.02 12.2367328918 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.44 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 63.6247240618 148% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.