If you are a leader of a group of three to four people, which of the following features are the most important when choosing group members?
-honesty
-the ability to get along well with others
-the ability to communicate clearly
When it comes to choosing a group member, Some people think that honesty is the most critical feature. Others claim that the ability to get along well with others is more vital. Still, others maintain that the ability to communicate is preferable. For me, I believe that the second kind of person is the most ideal candidate. My reasons are as follows.
To begin with, when I work in a group of three to four people, I am exceptionally concerned about working efficiency, and choosing people who are talented in communicating with others can significantly improve my team's working efficiency. As an example, I was required to complete a programming project with two people when I was studying in middle school, and I chose a classmate, Todd, who was exceptionally talented in communicating with others. He talked with others, discovered some middle ground, and helped me determine a programming language and a cloud platform that everybody understood. As a result, my group completed the whole project in less than three weeks because we saved plenty of time reconciling with others. On the other hand, another of my group member, Jimmy, was a truthful person. Nevertheless, his blatant and honest remarks, such as his unwillingness to adopt other people's ideas, made him negotiate with his teammates unsuccessfully. Therefore, even though Jimmy was a candid and righteous person, his lack of communication skills prevented him from successfully reconciling with his classmates, leading to the decline in our working efficiency.
In addition, whenever I worked in a group, conflicts become inevitable. And apparently, having an extraordinary communication skill helps reduce conflicts and facilitate cooperation. Take Todd again as an example. Whenever my group had quarrels about job division problems, such as who should be responsible for the frontend design, Todd would utilize his communication skill and help his teammates find a middle ground. Eventually, our group had less friction and tension, so we could collaborate with others without getting into any conflict. Contrarily, another of my groupmate, Richard, was a easy-going person. Nevertheless, he was too nice to judge his teammates whenever they had disputes about job responsibility issues. As a result, he often stay neutral whenever argument took place, so his easy-going personality did not help him deal with team disagreements successfully.
In conclusion, I maintain that people with an astounding communication skills make the best teammate due to the aforementioned reasons. After all, such people can assist me in addressing disputes and enhance efficiency.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 132, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to people'
Suggestion: to people
... about working efficiency, and choosing people who are talented in communicating with ...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 596, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
..., another of my groupmate, Richard, was a easy-going person. Nevertheless, he was...
^
Line 5, column 687, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...to judge his teammates whenever they had disputes about job responsibility issues...
^^
Line 5, column 753, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[3]
Message: The pronoun 'he' must be used with a third-person verb: 'stays'.
Suggestion: stays
...nsibility issues. As a result, he often stay neutral whenever argument took place, s...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, if, nevertheless, second, so, still, therefore, well, after all, as to, in addition, in conclusion, kind of, such as, as a result, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 15.1003584229 93% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 9.8082437276 51% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 13.8261648746 80% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.0286738351 109% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 43.0788530466 102% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 52.1666666667 90% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.0752688172 111% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2231.0 1977.66487455 113% => OK
No of words: 413.0 407.700716846 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.401937046 4.8611393121 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50803742585 4.48103885553 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.17090903289 2.67179642975 119% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 212.727598566 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.554479418886 0.524837075471 106% => OK
syllable_count: 687.6 618.680645161 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 9.59856630824 125% => OK
Article: 0.0 3.08781362007 0% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 3.51792114695 256% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.86738351254 214% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.6003584229 107% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.1344086022 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.6765166988 48.9658058833 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.409090909 100.406767564 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7727272727 20.6045352989 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.95454545455 5.45110844103 146% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.5376344086 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 11.8709677419 118% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.88709677419 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.277740733396 0.236089414692 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.084702660582 0.076458572812 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.086052934577 0.0737576698707 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.192320923188 0.150856017488 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.130931037359 0.0645574589148 203% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 11.7677419355 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 58.1214874552 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.1575268817 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.04 10.9000537634 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.77 8.01818996416 109% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 86.8835125448 128% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.002688172 90% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.0537634409 92% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
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.