Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Cooperative ability is more important than leadership in today’s world?
As the old saying goes, none of us is as smart as all of us. In our today's vigorous world, it takes numerous talents to yield exceptional far-reaching success rather than limited super leaders. In my opinion, I reckon that being capable of a cooperative work style is, indeed, far more beneficial than being a leader for two reasons.
First and foremost, diversified skills are crucially necessary for business to combat obstacles that they might face. For instance, last year, my company Novartis Pharma faced a steep decline in sales volume in the first quarter. Although all my sales teammates worked independently as diligence as we could, neither I, as a sales manager nor any of my coworkers, were able to get near enough of the target sales' goal. The CEO held a meeting; therefore, we all shared our perspectives, which collectively highlighted weak and potent points that enabled us to visualize the panoramic picture of the crisis. The marketing manager suggested a promotion plan, the purchasing department built on it, and the CFO approved. We organized a well-articulated action plan. Ultimately, we achieved unprecedented sales figures by the end of that year. As you can see, I, like other managers, cannot accomplish success and tackle problems unless we share our skills and work cooperatively.
Another potentially significant reason is the higher likelihood that the collaborative work model builds competencies and leaders of the future. Take Steve Jobs, for example, the founder of Apple, who created his formidable company not solely on the base of his genius character, but also on the contribution of highly skilled talented people. Apple is an incredibly collaborative company. He did have a strong faith in the teamwork setting throughout his company and that every team has his specialized field where they can make their own decisions not according to the hierarchy, yet the best idea wins. After he had died, the experts of Apple joined hands to make it even more thriving and progressing. If it had not for the collaboration of teamwork leaders, Apple would have fallen apart after the death of Steven Jobs.
In conclusion, I believe it is better to be cooperative rather than to be a leader; otherwise, you would not be able to defeat crises you might encounter or make leaders for the future.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
As the old saying goes, none of us is as...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...l than being a leader for two reasons. First and foremost, diversified skills a...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 982, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hare our skills and work cooperatively. Another potentially significant reason i...
^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... apart after the death of Steven Jobs. In conclusion, I believe it is better to...
^^^
Line 4, column 189, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...counter or make leaders for the future.
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, so, therefore, well, for example, for instance, i reckon, in conclusion, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 15.1003584229 79% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 9.8082437276 82% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 13.8261648746 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.0286738351 82% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 43.0788530466 95% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 52.1666666667 73% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.0752688172 74% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1944.0 1977.66487455 98% => OK
No of words: 385.0 407.700716846 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.04935064935 4.8611393121 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4296068528 4.48103885553 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91644941324 2.67179642975 109% => OK
Unique words: 239.0 212.727598566 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.620779220779 0.524837075471 118% => OK
syllable_count: 614.7 618.680645161 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 9.59856630824 94% => OK
Article: 5.0 3.08781362007 162% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.51792114695 171% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.86738351254 161% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6003584229 87% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.1344086022 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.6002549645 48.9658058833 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.0 100.406767564 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3888888889 20.6045352989 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.45110844103 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.5376344086 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 11.8709677419 59% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.85842293907 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.88709677419 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0770681971619 0.236089414692 33% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0204550703025 0.076458572812 27% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0370616785658 0.0737576698707 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.061348683178 0.150856017488 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.051454914195 0.0645574589148 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 11.7677419355 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 58.1214874552 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.1575268817 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.01 10.9000537634 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.39 8.01818996416 117% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 86.8835125448 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.002688172 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.0537634409 103% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 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.