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 number 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 that 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 article states that when a task is assigned to a team it gives several advantages and provides three reasons of support. However, the lecturer explains that research conducted by a company showed that there were no significant benefits and refutes each of the author's reasons.
To begin with, the reading states that a group of people has a vast range of knowledge and skill compared to a single individual. The lecturer refutes this point by stating that some people get a free ride during teamwork. He claims that these members contribute little to the team and get recognition for the overall team success nevertheless. Whereas, the members who worked hard didn't get proper recognition and failed to shine individually.
Secondly, the reading claims that a group of people can be faster and more responsive to any problem rather than any individual. However, the lecturer says that groups were slow in progress. He elaborates on this by bringing up the point that the firm found teams needed more time to reach an agreement about any issue.
Finally, the author posits that influential people in any team can lead the group towards success or failure. In contrast, the lecture opposes this point by saying that if they lead the group towards glory there will be no problems but if they failed to do so, the whole team will be responsible for their deeds. Additionally, he says that there will be no people in the team to prevent them if they're doing something wrong. Consequently, the group will turn into a dictatorship and might be less flexible in thinking.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 383, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...s. Whereas, the members who worked hard didnt get proper recognition and failed to sh...
^^^^^
Line 13, column 396, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: they're
...o people in the team to prevent them if theyre doing something wrong. Consequently, th...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, finally, however, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, whereas, in contrast, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1319.0 1373.03311258 96% => OK
No of words: 267.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94007490637 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04229324003 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62077029244 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 145.348785872 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.554307116105 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 392.4 419.366225166 94% => 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: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => 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: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.5896124591 49.2860985944 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.461538462 110.228320801 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5384615385 21.698381199 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.61538461538 7.06452816374 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.210662469424 0.272083759551 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0791865125175 0.0996497079465 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0507472036026 0.0662205650399 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119085999785 0.162205337803 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0454798244438 0.0443174109184 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.37 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.06 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 63.6247240618 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => 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.