The reading and the lecture both discuss whether working in teams would be beneficial. The author feels that it would be advantageous to both the employee and the office for three different reasons. However, the lecturer explains the research conducted in a company and refutes each of the writer’s idea.
To begin with, the author asserts that working in group brings together a variety of skills and expertise which can contribute in their own ways. He goes on to mention that they would have more solutions from different people involved. The lecturer argues with this idea stating that not everyone in the group equally contribute and if the group were to succeed, the people who made no efforts gain free recognition which would somehow discourage the real heroes behind it.
Secondly, the writer states that the chances of getting the work done quickly. On the other hand, the lecturer contradicts that most often, it takes a long time for the decision to make. He further adds that greater the number of minds involved, more is the chances of discord in their thoughts and hence more time is required to reach to an agreed decision.
Finally, the passage posits that the team work is quite an experience for everyone. Moreover, the article suggests that the result they get can have greater influence in regards to a single person's job and their ideas can actually be more significant. In contrast, the lecturer contends that the groups get driven by one or two influential people who eventually direct the majority. In addition, he states that even the logical ideas can go unheard among the majority, who blindly follow the so-called influencers.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 167, Rule ID: IN_REGARD_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'regarding' or 'with regard to'.
Suggestion: regarding; with regard to
...ult they get can have greater influence in regards to a single persons job and their ideas ca...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, hence, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, in addition, in contrast, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1385.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 278.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 4.98201438849 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08329915638 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5049534282 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.586330935252 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 417.6 419.366225166 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.4092946718 49.2860985944 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.538461538 110.228320801 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3846153846 21.698381199 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.3076923077 7.06452816374 146% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 4.45695364238 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.115958341654 0.272083759551 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0399229699093 0.0996497079465 40% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0434303201727 0.0662205650399 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0649648126101 0.162205337803 40% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0512160485481 0.0443174109184 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.3589403974 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.77 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.