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 nimbers 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.
Both the reading and the listening discuss about the working as a team for a project. The former claims that working as a team is the best approach to a new project in three ways, but the lecture challenges each of these points. First of all, the author of the passage contends that working as a team is beneficial because there might wider range of knowledgeable people. In addition, the group members possibly possess very expertise skills, and the response of the group will very fast. In contrast, the professor argues that it would not good for all group members. According to the professor, some of the members of the group will get credit without much contribution while hard working members will not get enough recognition that they deserved. Second of all, the reading asserts that working in a group will move forward the project without much doubt. However, the professor rebuts that the group project might not move quickly as there will be many disagreement. Every person have different perspective. So the group member will not much confident what they are doing. This incongruency will curtail the output of the project. Finally, the passage claims that the individual member will do much better in a group. Nevertheless, like the two suggestions before, the professor in her lecture proclaims that this recommendation is not feasible because, only one or two members influence will weaken others confidence. Some great ideas will be ignored.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 598, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...up members. According to the professor, some of the members of the group will get credit wi...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 954, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun disagreement seems to be countable; consider using: 'many disagreements'.
Suggestion: many disagreements
...might not move quickly as there will be many disagreement. Every person have different perspectiv...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 986, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'has'.
Suggestion: has
...will be many disagreement. Every person have different perspective. So the group mem...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, while, in addition, in contrast, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 5.04856512141 257% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1216.0 1373.03311258 89% => OK
No of words: 242.0 270.72406181 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.02479338843 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94415379849 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64719658331 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 130.0 145.348785872 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.537190082645 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 357.3 419.366225166 85% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.1720979448 49.2860985944 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.8571428571 110.228320801 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2857142857 21.698381199 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.5 7.06452816374 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 1.0 4.09492273731 24% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
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: 0.20246536898 0.272083759551 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0796865579948 0.0996497079465 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0535005588134 0.0662205650399 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.20246536898 0.162205337803 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => 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: 10.9 13.3589403974 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.54 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.13 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 63.6247240618 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted. The correct pattern:
para 1: introduction
para 2: doubt 1
para 3: doubt 2
para 4: doubt 3
Less contents wanted from the reading passages(25%), more content wanted from the lecture (75%).
Don't need a conclusion paragraph.
Read sample essays from ETS:
http://www.testbig.com/users/toeflwritingmaster
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.