Integrated writing
The reading asserts that assembling a group for new projects will be the better way to reach the better results because of some advantages, however, the lecturer finds all these ideas dubious and presented some documents to refute them all.
First of all, the reading claims that working as a team will present the chance of gathering more knowledge and experts. On the contrary, the speaker refutes this opinion in consideration to a research on a six-month team-working experience. At the end of the mentioned project, noting was the same as the reading's expectation.
Furthermore, the reading passage brings up the idea that the team work leads to quickly decisions in risky situations but in contrary, the lecturer holds the view that it will take so long to reach concerns in comparison with the time of being one- or two-persons involving in a project.
Finally, the reading opines that the individual team member will have the chance of shining at the end of the project. On the other hand, the speaker dismisses this issue due to the fact that if a project fails, then the whole members will be blamed. Whereas some of them were high creative members and suggested good points, but because of decision making by others, they were ignored.
- airships can be widely used nowadays 76
- agree or disagree Always telling the truth is the most important consideration in any relationship between people 60
- the usage of great houses of Chaco canyon 76
- Working for five days a week is compared with 4 days a week Reading declares three benefits of a four day week as for company the country as a whole and individual employee However the lecturer is on the opposite side 60
- dinosarus are considered as endotherms or not 76
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 189, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[1]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'research'.
Suggestion: research
...efutes this opinion in consideration to a research on a sixmonth teamworking experience At...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 300, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'readings'' or 'reading's'?
Suggestion: readings'; reading's
...oned project noting was the same as the readings expectation Furthermore the reading pa...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 283, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...one or twopersons involving in a project Finally the reading opines that the indi...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, so, then, whereas, first of all, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 22.412803532 58% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1020.0 1373.03311258 74% => OK
No of words: 212.0 270.72406181 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.81132075472 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.81578560438 4.04702891845 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50400178113 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 123.0 145.348785872 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.580188679245 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 310.5 419.366225166 74% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.23620309051 12% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 1.0 13.0662251656 8% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 212.0 21.2450331126 998% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 0.0 49.2860985944 0% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 1020.0 110.228320801 925% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 212.0 21.698381199 977% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 114.0 7.06452816374 1614% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 4.45695364238 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => 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: 107.2 13.3589403974 802% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: -135.24 53.8541721854 -251% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 0.0 5.55761589404 0% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 84.8 11.0289183223 769% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 12.1 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 17.8 8.42419426049 211% => Dale chall readability score is high.
difficult_words: 49.0 63.6247240618 77% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 54.0 10.7273730684 503% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 86.8 10.498013245 827% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 87.0 11.2008830022 777% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.