In many organizations, perhaps the best way to approach certain new projects is to assemble a group of people into a team.
Having a team of people attack a project offers several advantages. First of all, a group of people has a wider range of knowledge, expertise, and skills than any single individual is likely to possess. Also, because of the numbers of people involved and the greater resources they possess, a group can work more quickly in response to the task assigned to it and can come up with highly creative solutions to problems and issues. Sometimes these creative solutions come about because a group is more likely to make risky decisions that an individual might not undertake. This is because the group spreads responsibility for a decision to all the members and thus no single individual can be held accountable if the decision turns out to be wrong.
Taking part in a group process can be very rewarding for members of the team. Team members who have a voice in making a decision will no doubt feel better about carrying out the work that is entailed by the decision than they might doing work that is imposed on them by others. Also, the individual team member has a much better chance to "shine", to get his or her contributions and ideas not only recognized but recognized as highly significant, because a team's overall results can be more far-reaching and have greater impact than what might have otherwise been possible for the person to accomplish or contribute working alone.
▲
Last try:09/13/2020 16:27
Both the reading passage and lecture discusses whether working in the group for performing the task of certain new projects. The former engages that there are three benefits to work in the group, but the later contradicts each of these points.
First of all, the author of the passage claims that group work helps to accumulate a greater varity of competence through utilizing different qualities of individual people. However, the lecture contends that some of the members in the group are to be free riders. And these people might get recognition if team is sucessful to fulfill its task without making any contribution of the team project. Individual members of the group who work really hard can not get any identical recognition for their best performance.
Secondly, the text asserts that group work helps to perform the tasks more rapidly by effective use of mass materials and people. In contrast, the listening counters that the team work causes a huge amount of delay of any task. Because different people have different opinions and it would be very onerous job to reach a consensus.
In third, the reading passage mentions that it is a great opportunity for the members of team to take part in decision amking process rather than performing the other's decided assignment. Nevrtheless, the lecture states that one or two people in the group might be very influencial and make oppositions of others decisions. They think their reccomendations would be very creative though some makes objections that it might not be good overall. And al last all members of the group have to bear the responisibility of failures of the group project. There is a very few chance of getting individual recognition of establishing their outstanding ideas as performance is measured as a whole in a team.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 210, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...ple. However, the lecture contends that some of the members in the group are to be free rid...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 363, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
.... They think their reccomendations would be very creative though some makes objec...
^^
Line 7, column 566, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun chance seems to be countable; consider using: 'few chances'.
Suggestion: few chances
...s of the group project. There is a very few chance of getting individual recognition of es...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, really, second, secondly, so, third, in contrast, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1504.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 299.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03010033445 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80048365368 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 145.348785872 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.535117056856 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 458.1 419.366225166 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 26.6377819754 49.2860985944 54% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 107.428571429 110.228320801 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3571428571 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.21428571429 7.06452816374 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 4.33554083885 231% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.227059786072 0.272083759551 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0806674638836 0.0996497079465 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0589140850639 0.0662205650399 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.139135255911 0.162205337803 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0409339026879 0.0443174109184 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 12.2367328918 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.43 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.