Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
When classmates or colleagues communicate about a project in person instead of by e-mail, they will produce better work for the project.
As an age-old aphorism goes, “it is not what you say, but how you say it”. Effective communication is imperative to the success of the teamwork no matter in school life or in workplace. Thus, while emails have been the most widely used tool for communication today, co-workers should keep face-to-face communication for better work output.
Admittedly, emails seem to be an efficient and easy way for colleagues to exchange information, especially when issuing notice to all team members. Instead of gathering together in person, what everyone needs is just to check their mailbox and read the email. This helps avoid the possible troubles, such as traveling to the other end of the city, adjusting the hectic schedule to make it available for meeting. Communicating by emails is therefore deemed as a shortcut of daily communication in workplace, which allows colleagues to put more time in project itself rather than other irrelevant issues.
However, during the project, there might be more two-way interactions that have time urgency. In such situation, sending emails is not a good move. When a fast response is needed, it is really annoying and time-wasting to wait for the recipients to check the email and make response. Thus, rather than sending emails back and forth, talking with someone in person could be more efficient. For example, when making plans for the project, the members might just need a twenty minutes' discussion face to face to negotiate every detail, but it possibly takes a whole day to settle each part down if they have to communicate by e-mails.
Moreover, for the quality of communication, team members are suggested to have more face-to-face interactions. It is inevitable that a lot of information can get lost in translation when being conveyed by emails. However, when having contact in person, people could not only get a clear understanding of verbal information but also pick up all the implications expressed in speakers' body language. Compared with just reading an “OK” in email, direct eye contact and nodding head could tell more about whether the colleagues could really reach a consensus. Once being aware of potential disagreement, the members are able to make adjustment immediately to ensure everyone to comply with the shared target and to make wholehearted dedication. Also, in some cases, writing emails is rather restricted in informing some complicated issues, especially for those with poor formal writing skills. Instead, having a discussion in reality, people could ask questions and get immediate explanation, which avoids misunderstanding and ensures the accuracy of communication. All of these do push forward the project in progress smoothly.
In conclusion, for some one-way information transmission, email is regarded as the first choice for most of team members, while to guarantee the efficiency for project planning and decision making as well as to avoid the misunderstanding and inaccuracy, communication in person should be advocated.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 494, Rule ID: PHRASE_REPETITION[1]
Message: This phrase is duplicated. You should probably leave only 'face to'.
Suggestion: face to
...t just need a twenty minutes discussion face to face to negotiate every detail, but it possibly...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, moreover, really, so, therefore, thus, well, while, as to, for example, in conclusion, such as, as well as, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 15.1003584229 126% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 9.8082437276 112% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 13.8261648746 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.0286738351 82% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 43.0788530466 37% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 52.1666666667 121% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 8.0752688172 211% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2547.0 1977.66487455 129% => OK
No of words: 478.0 407.700716846 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.32845188285 4.8611393121 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67581127817 4.48103885553 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03210833546 2.67179642975 113% => OK
Unique words: 268.0 212.727598566 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.560669456067 0.524837075471 107% => OK
syllable_count: 786.6 618.680645161 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 9.59856630824 31% => OK
Article: 2.0 3.08781362007 65% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.51792114695 171% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.6003584229 102% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.1344086022 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.1686053101 48.9658058833 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.285714286 100.406767564 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7619047619 20.6045352989 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.2380952381 5.45110844103 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 11.8709677419 67% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.85842293907 181% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88709677419 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.229509217604 0.236089414692 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0632393271524 0.076458572812 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0405107086584 0.0737576698707 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.135920986865 0.150856017488 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00974503839034 0.0645574589148 15% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 11.7677419355 128% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 58.1214874552 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 10.1575268817 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.93 10.9000537634 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.09 8.01818996416 113% => OK
difficult_words: 132.0 86.8835125448 152% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.002688172 115% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.0537634409 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.