Group thinking
The reading and the lecture is about Group thinking. The reading gives a brief information about group thinking and discusses some of the advantages and also provides several reasons of support. However, the lecturer says that the group thinking can lead to many disastrous decisions and can even be irrational and casts doubt on the claims made in the reading.
First of all, the author claims that teams of individuals can group their intellectual resources in order to arrive at superior decisions and lead to more in-depth approach to problem solving. This point is challenged by the lecturer. He says that group thinking can rather lead to disastrous decisions and can be often irrational. Furthermore he points out that the objections raised in a group are often ignored.
Secondly, the author states that since the group involved people from different organization and background they tend to bring with them a large variety of skills, interests and knowledge. The lecturer opposes this point by saying that the group member are often tending to be reassuring each other and they even feel invulnerable towards most of the things as they belong from a group.
Finally, the author explains that group thinking can increase enthusiasm and provide necessary ambiance for brainstorming ideas. The lecturer on the other hand, explains the counter effect of group thinking by giving an example of a car from ford that was intended to be revolutionary in the field of automobile whereas, it turned out to be a big failure and the people to be blamed were the associated who carried out the idea. In this way the lecturer opposes this point and illustrates this with a relevant example.
In conclusion, the lecturer effectively casts doubt on the claims and theories presented in the reading.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The reading and the lecture is about Gro...
^^
Line 1, column 129, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...tion about group thinking and discusses some of the advantages and also provides several re...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ubt on the claims made in the reading. First of all, the author claims that tea...
^^^^
Line 2, column 221, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...roblem solving. This point is challenged by the lecturer. He says that group thin...
^^
Line 2, column 337, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Furthermore,
... decisions and can be often irrational. Furthermore he points out that the objections raise...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s raised in a group are often ignored. Secondly, the author states that since t...
^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he things as they belong from a group. Finally, the author explains that group ...
^^^^
Line 4, column 99, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ncrease enthusiasm and provide necessary ambiance for brainstorming ideas. The le...
^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ustrates this with a relevant example. In conclusion, the lecturer effectively ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, second, secondly, so, thus, whereas, in conclusion, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 7.30242825607 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 30.3222958057 148% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1500.0 1373.03311258 109% => OK
No of words: 296.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06756756757 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14784890444 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72098545935 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 145.348785872 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.510135135135 0.540411800872 94% => OK
syllable_count: 447.3 419.366225166 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.3535881849 49.2860985944 139% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.384615385 110.228320801 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7692307692 21.698381199 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.0769230769 7.06452816374 143% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 4.19205298013 215% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.371740106599 0.272083759551 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.144170520937 0.0996497079465 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0988112903639 0.0662205650399 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.200549168611 0.162205337803 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.118633825263 0.0443174109184 268% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.41 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.