There are different opinions on whether classmates or colleagues should communicate with each other about the project they are undertaking in person or via e-mail. Even though some people think it is better to use technology and contact your classmates or co-workers through e-mail, I believe otherwise, maintaining that in some cases, like working on a project, traditional ways of communication are more conducive than modern ones. In what follows, I will delve into the most persuasive reasons to substantiate my perspective.
Without a doubt, the most consequential reason corroborating my stance on this subject is that contacting via e-mail is sometimes time-consuming. Usually, there is a team of 4 or 5 persons involved in a project, and e-mailing is not the most efficient way of communicating. For instance, some team members may not have access to the internet and respond late; others may not even see the e-mail. The fact that e-mail has so many benefits is undeniable, for instance, it is the best way to set a meeting, but it is crucial that all team members gather in a certain place and talk about their projects if they want to make the best use of their time. Therefore, this reason manifests that face-to-face meetings are the best way to work on a project and talk about it since it prevents the dissipation of team members' invaluable time.
Although the previous reason is the first one crossing the mind at first glance, another remarkable point deserving some words here is that many difficulties would be brought about while working on a project. Most of the time, talking about these issues and resolving them via e-mail is impossible. People should arrange a meeting and congregate to resolve those problems together. Take my own experience as an example. Last year, my friends and I were working on an aircraft design project. We held weekly meetings, and in those sessions, we talked about the issues we had faced during the last week. Therefore, regardless of his project duty, everybody got involved in those problems. At the end of the day, we were able to resolve all issues and took the project to the next step. Had we not held those face-to-face meetings, we would have never coped with all those problems. This point, thus, illustrates the fact that in-person communication is vital for success in a project.
All in all, many people are in favor of using e-mail rather than arranging meetings to communicate with their teammates. Nevertheless, the foregoing reasons lead us to conclude that face-to-face meeting is the best way of communication in such projects. Not only are in-person sessions time-saving, but they also are the best way to tackle problems people might face while working on a project.
- The following appeared in a memorandum written by the vice president of Health Naturally a small but expanding chain of stores selling health food and other health related products Our previous experience has been that our stores are most profitable in ar 66
- The following appeared in a memo to the board of directors of Bargain Brand Cereals One year ago we introduced our first product Bargain Brand breakfast cereal Our very low prices quickly drew many customers away from the top selling cereal companies 58
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement The opinions of celebrities such as famous entertainers and athletes are more important to younger people than they are to older people 71
- In recent years many frog species around the world have declined in numbers or even gone extinct due to changes in their environment These population declines and extinctions have serious consequences for the ecosystems in which frogs live for example fro 81
- The following appeared in a memo from the director of a large group of hospitals In a controlled laboratory study of liquid hand soaps a concentrated solution of extra strength UltraClean hand soap produced a 40 percent greater reduction in harmful bacter 66
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, may, nevertheless, so, therefore, thus, while, for instance, talking about, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 15.1003584229 152% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 9.8082437276 82% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 13.8261648746 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.0286738351 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 45.0 43.0788530466 104% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 52.1666666667 121% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.0752688172 87% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2292.0 1977.66487455 116% => OK
No of words: 459.0 407.700716846 113% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99346405229 4.8611393121 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62863751936 4.48103885553 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87067276088 2.67179642975 107% => OK
Unique words: 231.0 212.727598566 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.503267973856 0.524837075471 96% => OK
syllable_count: 710.1 618.680645161 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 9.59856630824 104% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.86738351254 214% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.6003584229 102% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.1344086022 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.7899818702 48.9658058833 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.142857143 100.406767564 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8571428571 20.6045352989 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.28571428571 5.45110844103 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 11.8709677419 93% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => 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: 0.271818662772 0.236089414692 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0839948666095 0.076458572812 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0638721223612 0.0737576698707 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.185080984126 0.150856017488 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0650664637314 0.0645574589148 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 11.7677419355 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 58.1214874552 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 10.1575268817 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.66 10.9000537634 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.12 8.01818996416 101% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 86.8835125448 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.002688172 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.0537634409 103% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.247311828 98% => 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: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.