Your teacher assigns a project to you, and you can select the members to work with.
-choose the members who think and work in similar ways
-choose the members who have totally different ideas
Which would you think is more effective to work with?
With teamwork been a crucial part in both work and study nowadays, it has been widely debated which kind of teammates is better to work with. If a project is assigned, while some argues that they prefer collaborating with those who have totally different ideas, I reckon, however, it would be better to cooperate with the teammates who think and work in similar ways.
First of all, working with similar people can avoid unnecessary arguments, thus promoting efficiency. Admittedly, appropriate arguments are rewarding, since they might trigger new thoughts and creative ideas. Despite these potential benefits, working with people of different ideas inevitably makes the whole team take the risks of discussing too much time to finish the assignment in time. For example, once I had a homework to conduct a survey about the purchasing power of young people. To my disappointment, my team spent almost half of the given time struggling to select a location to do the survey, which, in my opinion, was merely trifle details worth little attention and could be skipped if working with people of similar thoughts.
Moreover, even if the unnecessary arguments mentioned above reach a conclusion, some members of the team must be disappointed since their opinions are not taken into consideration. Under this circumstance, it is unrealistic to count on all of the numbers to do their best to cover their due parts. As a result, the outcome might not be so satisfying. That everyone in a team is crucial is beyond any doubt. No matter what the unsatisfied members are responsible, their flaws or carelessness make a big difference. Suppose they are assigned to look for useful information online. Given that important information is omitted, the whole mission might be compromised.
Finally, mistakes are common in teamwork, even in the team consisting of people with similar thoughts. However, mistakes may be more destructive in the team composed of people with different thoughts. Imagine a mission not going smoothly as planned, those whose ideas were ignored at the very beginning would make a lot of complaints. Chances are that they might claim that it would be better if their original suggestions were considered. These sorts of complaints are extremely detrimental, since they would spark a situation where members in the team don’t trust one another. On the contrary, if the team is made up of people of similar thoughts, they would possibly stand together firmly and strive to address the problem.
To sum up, collaborating with people of different thoughts and ideas put the whole team in potential risks throughout the collaboration. In light of it, it won’t help make the teamwork more effective.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 640, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'trifled'.
Suggestion: trifled
...urvey, which, in my opinion, was merely trifle details worth little attention and coul...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 237, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...umstance, it is unrealistic to count on all of the numbers to do their best to cover their...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 334, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...rts. As a result, the outcome might not be so satisfying. That everyone in a team is crucial is ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, look, may, moreover, so, thus, while, for example, i reckon, kind of, as a result, first of all, in my opinion, on the contrary, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 15.1003584229 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 9.8082437276 133% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 13.8261648746 51% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 43.0788530466 74% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 52.1666666667 128% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.0752688172 136% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2297.0 1977.66487455 116% => OK
No of words: 442.0 407.700716846 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19683257919 4.8611393121 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58517132086 4.48103885553 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88773941384 2.67179642975 108% => OK
Unique words: 241.0 212.727598566 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545248868778 0.524837075471 104% => OK
syllable_count: 702.0 618.680645161 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 9.59856630824 115% => OK
Article: 2.0 3.08781362007 65% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.51792114695 199% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.94265232975 202% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.6003584229 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.1344086022 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.3913609282 48.9658058833 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.409090909 100.406767564 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0909090909 20.6045352989 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.59090909091 5.45110844103 139% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 11.8709677419 101% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 3.85842293907 233% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.88709677419 20% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.229788290749 0.236089414692 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0584701131418 0.076458572812 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0687040720249 0.0737576698707 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.128674471018 0.150856017488 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0909853131221 0.0645574589148 141% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 11.7677419355 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 58.1214874552 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.1575268817 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 10.9000537634 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.01818996416 106% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 86.8835125448 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.002688172 110% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.0537634409 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.