In many organizations, perhaps the best way to approach certain new projects is to
assemble a group of people into a team. Having a team of people attack a project offers
several advantages.
First of all, a group of people has a wider range of knowledge, expertise, and skills than
any single individual is likely to possess. Also, because of the numbers of people involved
and the greater resources they possess, a group can work more quickly in response to the
task assigned to it and can come up with highly creative solutions to problems and issues.
Sometimes these creative solutions come about because a group is more likely to make
risky decisions that an individual might not undertake. This is because the group spreads
responsibility for a decision to all the members and thus no single individual can be held
accountable if the decision turns out to be wrong.
Taking part in a group process can be very rewarding for members of the team. Team
members who have a voice in making a decision will no doubt feel better about carrying
out the work that is entailed by the decision than they might doing work that is imposed on
them by others. Also, the individual team member has a much better chance to “shine”, to
get his or her contributions and ideas not only recognized but recognized as highly
significant, because a team’s overall results can be more far-reaching and have greater
impact than what might have otherwise been possible for the person to accomplish or
contribute working alone.
The reading passage supports working in a group or team for completing project works in a company. However, the lecturer refutes the idea that made by the author in the reading passage.
To the author, a group includes skilled people, having expertise on specific subjects, for this reason, a group can make an instant decision. In contrast, the lecturer denies the author's argument. He says that some team members acting like just free rider as taking benefits of group project.
In addition, the author also includes that group can take risky decision if needed because individual person, in this case, would not be accountable for wrong decisions. However, the lecturer mentions totally opposite views. He says that the influential persons in a group prevent others in taking good decision by saying that this idea would not work. For this, the worth idea remains undiscussed. The speaker also adds that due to influential bodies in a group, other team members might undertake decisions that actually would not worthy. In that case, the whole project goes to failure, but all the members have to be responsible for this bad idea.
Finally, the author suggests that by working in a group, individual members have a great chance to flourish in the career as the group or team can undertake decisions that have a substantial impact. Conversely, the speaker claims that since recognizing the group's success goes to all the members, so there is no space to be famous individually or take the credit personally. This idea totally contradicts the argument of the author.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 179, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...n. In contrast, the lecturer denies the authors argument. He says that some team member...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 257, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'groups'' or 'group's'?
Suggestion: groups'; group's
...eaker claims that since recognizing the groups success goes to all the members, so the...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, conversely, finally, however, if, so, in addition, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 10.4613686534 38% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => 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: 1310.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 260.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03846153846 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01553427287 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59432699257 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 138.0 145.348785872 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.530769230769 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 396.0 419.366225166 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.7380180501 49.2860985944 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.5714285714 110.228320801 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5714285714 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.92857142857 7.06452816374 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
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: 0.162714162544 0.272083759551 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0603930834447 0.0996497079465 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0565409917463 0.0662205650399 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119414946402 0.162205337803 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0224397503713 0.0443174109184 51% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 13.3589403974 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.66 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.