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.
Both the passage and the lecture are discussing the effects that a team would bring. While the passage argues that work done by team is better than work done by individual, the lecture questions the argument by casting doubt on the following points.
First of all, the passage claims that assembling a group of people into a team may help the work done more quickly. However, the lecture argues that work done by team may be less efficient than by individual. Since the investigate done by the company indicated that a team usually contain free riders, who are waiting for other team members to finish the work for them. Moreover, a team would take more time to reach consensus. Thus, team may not be more efficient than individual.
Secondly, the passage argues that a team would be willing to make risky decisions, because the group spreads responsibility to all the members. Yet the lecture has completely different opinion that once a team member make the wrong decision, the whole team has to take the blame. Which may lead to the team be less willing to make risky decisions.
Finally, the lecture states that team members who are influential may make other's ideas being rejected without being closely discerned those ideas. Since other team members may follow the decisions made by influencers undoubtedly. And therefore pale other ideas that have potential to shine.
In conclusion, based on the reasons mentioned above, the lecture argues that the argument of the passage is not as tenable ad it stands.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 216, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...ess efficient than by individual. Since the investigate done by the company indicated that a te...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 102, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'spreads'' or 'spread's'?
Suggestion: spreads'; spread's
...make risky decisions, because the group spreads responsibility to all the members. Yet ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 149, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Since” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ut being closely discerned those ideas. Since other team members may follow the decis...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, while, as to, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 13.0 22.412803532 58% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1271.0 1373.03311258 93% => OK
No of words: 256.0 270.72406181 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.96484375 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4954273367 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 126.0 145.348785872 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.4921875 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 391.5 419.366225166 93% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => 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: 38.9563465789 49.2860985944 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.7857142857 110.228320801 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2857142857 21.698381199 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.85714285714 7.06452816374 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => 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: 0.165227500806 0.272083759551 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0698205557268 0.0996497079465 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0660834765464 0.0662205650399 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0829295596569 0.162205337803 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0628180645949 0.0443174109184 142% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 13.3589403974 83% => 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: 11.49 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.8 8.42419426049 93% => OK
difficult_words: 53.0 63.6247240618 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.