When classmates or colleagues communicate about a project in person instead of by e-mail, they will produce better work for the project. (Agree/disagree?)
It is undeniable that individuals are constantly seeking ways to enhance the quality of their performance in the workplace or academic environment, yet they face various challenges. For example, it is questionable whether face-to-face communications or distance communications would lead to higher productivity. As far as I am concerned, remote connections would be highly beneficial to in-person ones. The reasons supporting my viewpoint will be elaborated in the subsequent paragraphs.
The first and foremost reason is that being in touch by email gives people the courage to express their opposing views. In other words, a golden opportunity is provided for them to state whatever they might think is helpful to the project. As a result, they may come up with innovative ideas. On the other hand, when people are obliged to directly communicate with someone, they may feel acute anxiety, and this may negatively affect their performance. My personal experience demonstrates this situation. Five years ago, when I was an undergraduate student, I was assigned a group project in Contemporary History class with two of my classmates. The first session of our meeting was a disaster; I could not cope with my anxiety, and each time that I intended to say my opinions, my tongue would become dry. After that, I recommended that our discussions take place by email. This worked great for me, causing me to gain my confidence and be able to freely state my perspectives. Consequently, our project became one of the best projects due to covering a wide variety of opinions regarding a political event in the past.
Secondly, written communications allow individuals to write a comprehensive report. Indeed, they can thoroughly think about every aspect in advance and then offer their comments in great detail, leading to a higher level of output. In this way, their comments would be more persuasive. However, in face-to-face interaction, each person has to present the answers to the spontaneous questions come in group members’ mind in the very moment. Therefore, they will not have adequate time to put forward a convincing solution. For instance, last year, my officemate and I had to perform a task together. I wrote a report in meticulous detail. However, she asked me to have a meeting because she would prefer to have a face-to-face talk. In the meeting, she was unable to provide any answers to my questions and eventually acknowledged that it could have been better if she had written her report and thought more carefully about the probable questions.
To conclude, I am of the firm belief that written communications can significantly boost the productivity of a team compared to meeting in-person. This is mainly because not only does it give team members the bravery to state their points of view, but they can also carefully assess any problems that may occur in the process of performing the project.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, as to, for example, for instance, as a result, in other words, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 15.1003584229 119% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 9.8082437276 173% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 13.8261648746 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 61.0 43.0788530466 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 68.0 52.1666666667 130% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.0752688172 149% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2447.0 1977.66487455 124% => OK
No of words: 477.0 407.700716846 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12997903564 4.8611393121 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67336384929 4.48103885553 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06763688161 2.67179642975 115% => OK
Unique words: 267.0 212.727598566 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.559748427673 0.524837075471 107% => OK
syllable_count: 775.8 618.680645161 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 20.0 9.59856630824 208% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.51792114695 142% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.86738351254 214% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.94265232975 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.6003584229 121% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.1344086022 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.9925994295 48.9658058833 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.88 100.406767564 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.08 20.6045352989 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.2 5.45110844103 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 11.8709677419 126% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.88709677419 143% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.186145098347 0.236089414692 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0470608737938 0.076458572812 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0369257985377 0.0737576698707 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10688322352 0.150856017488 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0258592707789 0.0645574589148 40% => 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: 12.3 11.7677419355 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 58.1214874552 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 10.1575268817 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 10.9000537634 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.25 8.01818996416 115% => OK
difficult_words: 141.0 86.8835125448 162% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.002688172 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.0537634409 95% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.247311828 107% => 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: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.