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.
The reading passage presents several advantages for having a team of people work on a project. However, the speaker in the lecture casts doubt on the claims made in the article. He mentions that a company implemented this strategy by assigning a group of people to finish a project. According to the lecture, The firm found out that working in groups actually has many disadvantages which the professor points out in the lecture.
First of all, the writer assumes that working together would be very rewarding for team members as they would feel they are contributing in the decision making process. In addition, team members would see their contributions as highly significant since the results from the group work would be more far-reaching than the outcomes if a person works on their own. In contrast, the lecturer brings up the fact that it was demonstrated that some people got a free ride which meant they got credit for the accomplished work without really giving a hand in the efforts done on the task. Moreover, group members who genuinely worked hard never got their names recognized as the acknowledgement went to the group as a whole and as a result, they had the opposite attitude when asked about how they felt.
Secondly, the author holds that a group would have more knowledge and would make creative decisions as the risk would be spread over all the members and not one person only. Besides, due to the greater resources that are available to a group, they would be more efficient and would complete required jobs quickly. Conversely, the lecturer indicates that it was found that the group was very slow because it was hard to reach consensus between group members and building an agreement did not happen until several exhaustive meetings. What;s more, few people were very influential on the decisions that the group made. For instance, if those influencers thought that certain idea was not going to work, the idea was quickly dropped by the group without further discussions. On the other hand, the group adopted some bad ideas just because the influencers considered them valid ignoring warnings from other team members. Furthermore, when the project failed, the blame was placed on the entire group
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 11, column 997, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...the blame was placed on the entire group
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, besides, but, conversely, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, really, second, secondly, so, for instance, in addition, in contrast, as a result, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1867.0 1373.03311258 136% => OK
No of words: 374.0 270.72406181 138% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.99197860963 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3976220399 4.04702891845 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59257519428 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 206.0 145.348785872 142% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.550802139037 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 551.7 419.366225166 132% => 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
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.6966117918 49.2860985944 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.466666667 110.228320801 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.9333333333 21.698381199 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.8666666667 7.06452816374 182% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 4.09492273731 73% => More paragraphs wanted.
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 : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.216172824727 0.272083759551 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.085294620613 0.0996497079465 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0616966241119 0.0662205650399 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.168059917421 0.162205337803 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0557456185478 0.0443174109184 126% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.96 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.37 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.