Groupthink
In contrast to the reading passage, which emphasize the advantageousness of group decision making, the lecturer focuses on pointing out misconceptions and possible unforeseen consequences of the practice. The professor disagrees with the text about the flawlessness of the approach providing several examples of situations where group thinking led to disastrous consequences.
First of all, the passage claims that the decision brought up by a group of individuals has broader view on the objective and more varied in-depth approach. The orator, nevertheless, states that such an approach might have a malignant effect, when a member of the group convince all the members with an irrational idea that leads to horrible outcomes.
The second point that the professor makes has to do with the feel of invulnerability, which may affect the work done by the group. According to the passage, responsibility in groups is spread around so the members don’t feel afraid, however, the lecturer claims that such effect may has the other side which can cause harm to solving problem.
Finally, in contrast to the reading passage’s claim that group discussions have the advantage of encouraging motivation in team members, professor points out that members of the group may reassure each other with the correctness of their though, even thought, the idea was initially wrong. In support of that argument professor provides an example of car company design group, whose new car design was considered excellent by the group members but turned out to be a failure.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 481, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...members but turned out to be a failure.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, may, nevertheless, second, so, as to, in contrast, first of all, in contrast to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 7.0 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 1.00243902439 499% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 3.0 6.8 44% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 3.15609756098 444% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 9.0 5.60731707317 161% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 42.0 33.7804878049 124% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 3.97073170732 50% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1318.0 965.302439024 137% => OK
No of words: 247.0 196.424390244 126% => OK
Chars per words: 5.33603238866 4.92477711251 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96437052324 3.73543355544 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01025690636 2.65546596893 113% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 106.607317073 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.574898785425 0.547539520022 105% => OK
syllable_count: 388.8 283.868780488 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.45097560976 110% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 1.53170731707 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.33902439024 161% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 3.36585365854 119% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 8.94146341463 89% => OK
Sentence length: 30.0 22.4926829268 133% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 45.7983010056 43.030603864 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 164.75 112.824112599 146% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.875 22.9334400587 135% => OK
Discourse Markers: 13.625 5.23603664747 260% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 3.70975609756 54% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 1.13902439024 351% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.09268292683 49% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.215688989381 0% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.103423049105 0% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0843802449381 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.15604864568 0% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0819641961636 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: 19.2 13.2329268293 145% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.03 61.2550243902 67% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 10.3012195122 146% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.28 11.4140731707 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.6 8.06136585366 119% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 40.7170731707 172% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.4329268293 127% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 10.9970731707 127% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.0658536585 136% => OK
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: 11.2359550562 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.