To help students develop cooperation awareness, professors today are more likely to let students finish group projects together. Some people contend that members insisting on their ways to do things are more helpful to the group than people who are willing to do what others want. However, personally speaking, people who are eager to carry out the thoughts of other group members are more beneficial to a group, as it helps the group save up much time and contributes to the relationships among group members.
The first significant point to be mentioned is that cooperative members can significantly increase efficiency. Specifically, such members are willing to spend time in carrying out the thoughts and plans of the whole group and make the group more practical, which will definitely help the group save up time. For example, I was once assigned to work with roommates on a biological experiment that is quite complicated and time-consuming. After a brief discussion, we came up with a primitive plan. Without hesitation, one of my roommates started working on it. Greatly encouraged by his behavior, all of us get engaged in the experiment. Finally, we become the only group that finished the assignment on time, as other groups spend too much time arguing about the ways to do the experiment. Without my roommate's willingness to cooperate, never would my group receive positive remarks from our professor.
Another salient point is corroborating with my stance is that contribution among group members., in another word, a group member who is willing to work on others' thoughts can sometimes stop the endless arguments and create a friendly atmosphere. Take myself as an example; there was a time when I was assigned to work in a group which composed of students from different grades. In the beginning, several senior students insisted on their thoughts, thinking they were more experienced. Caring little about their arguments, I started to do researches on the views of the majority. Soon later, seeing what I was doing, all other group members stopped the meaningless argument and began to communicate more friendly about the specific steps to carry out the plan. If I had not been so cooperative, such friendly atmosphere would not have come up.
It has been argued that a person preferring to do things differently can benefit the group, as independent thinking might bring about the surprising result. Some group members may have unique ideas which cannot be understood by others until they are carried out. However, such independence can lead to a tight relationship among group members, which is positively harmful to cooperation.
In summary, it is sometimes true that people doing things in ways different from other group members can benefit the group. However, after discussion, I still think group members willing to working on others' thoughts are more helpful to the group.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e relationships among group members. The first significant point to be mentio...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...positive remarks from our professor. Another salient point is corroborating w...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...y atmosphere would not have come up. It has been argued that a person preferr...
^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s positively harmful to cooperation. In summary, it is sometimes true that pe...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, may, so, still, for example, in summary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 15.1003584229 159% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 9.8082437276 112% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 13.8261648746 43% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.0286738351 136% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 43.0788530466 74% => OK
Preposition: 73.0 52.1666666667 140% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.0752688172 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2443.0 1977.66487455 124% => OK
No of words: 473.0 407.700716846 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16490486258 4.8611393121 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66353547975 4.48103885553 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84681862377 2.67179642975 107% => OK
Unique words: 234.0 212.727598566 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.494714587738 0.524837075471 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 742.5 618.680645161 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 9.59856630824 73% => OK
Article: 2.0 3.08781362007 65% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.51792114695 171% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.94265232975 162% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.6003584229 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.1344086022 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.5783824792 48.9658058833 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.045454545 100.406767564 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5 20.6045352989 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.31818181818 5.45110844103 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => 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: 0.44848227618 0.236089414692 190% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.130630237656 0.076458572812 171% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.109616010296 0.0737576698707 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.290480425635 0.150856017488 193% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0889700550648 0.0645574589148 138% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 11.7677419355 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 58.1214874552 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.1575268817 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 10.9000537634 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.05 8.01818996416 100% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 86.8835125448 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 10.002688172 155% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.0537634409 103% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.