The reading and the lecture are both about working on a project as a team which is created by assembling a group of people. The author of the reading believes that there are several benefits of approaching a project as a team. The lecturer challenges the statements made by the author. He is of the opinion that not only it has some advantages but also has some drawbacks.
First of all, the author suggests that while working with a group, there is an amalgamation of different types of people having a wider range of knowledge, expertise, and skill. It is mentioned that a team can solve the project more promptly and there is a high possibility of generating creative and intellectual solutions. This argument is challenged by the lecturer. He says that a team consists of different people, sometimes it may happen that some of the members give a free ride. Furthermore, he argues that in spite of having almost zero contribution some of the group members enjoy the outcome of the success of a project.
Secondly, the writer contends that collective and risky decisions are made by the presence and consultation of other team members. The article notes that no individual will be responsible in case of wrong decisions. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by asserting that decisions may not be taken quickly as the members will have difficulty in coming to a conclusive decision. He elaborates on this by mentioning that there are definitely one or two influential persons lead the group without any discussion on a probable solution.
Finally, it is stated in the article that as the team’s overall outcome can be more far-reaching, the individual person has a much better possibility to shine, to get recognition profoundly. The lecturer, on the other hand, posits that in a group all members are not equally skilled, expert and definitely the insightful, perceptive person has enormous contribution in comparison with others. He puts forth the idea that while discussing the success, everyone mentioned the team rather than the insightful one which eventually creates discontent.
In conclusion, the lecturer successfully and effectively challenge the issues made by the author.
- TOEFL integrated writing: Dutch painter Rembrandt 3
- TOEFL T P O 5 - Integrated Writing Task 3
- Repenomamus robustus (R.robustus) was not an active hunter 78
- Repenomamus robustus (R.robustus) was not an active hunter 71
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reason 57
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 228, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...its of approaching a project as a team. The lecturer challenges the statements made...
^^^
Line 3, column 450, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...nt people, sometimes it may happen that some of the members give a free ride. Furthermore, ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 560, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...pite of having almost zero contribution some of the group members enjoy the outcome of the ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 257, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'member'?
Suggestion: member
... other hand, posits that in a group all members are not equally skilled, expert and def...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, while, in conclusion, first of all, in spite of, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1844.0 1373.03311258 134% => OK
No of words: 360.0 270.72406181 133% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12222222222 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35587717469 4.04702891845 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97961696934 2.5805825403 115% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 145.348785872 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.511111111111 0.540411800872 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 585.9 419.366225166 140% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.7399518862 49.2860985944 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.470588235 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1764705882 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.58823529412 7.06452816374 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 4.33554083885 277% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.368481868464 0.272083759551 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101267051504 0.0996497079465 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0665877114051 0.0662205650399 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.174573473233 0.162205337803 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0967382360513 0.0443174109184 218% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.98 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 63.6247240618 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.