The reading and lecture are both about the project assembled by a team. The author of the reading states that work can be done effeciently in a group. The lecturer disagrees. He mentions involving people means creation of distinct ideas which could make work even more complicated and attacks each of the claims made in the article.
Firstly, the author begins by stating that in a team members come up with varities of ideas and views which results in a productive output. Similarly, even if any problem occur, the joint effort of team can easily resolve it. The professor believes there are flaws in the writer’s position. He contends that if any mistake happen to create by any member, everyone is resbonsible for it and not a single member who done the mistake however each and everyone have to compensate.
Secondly, according to the writing project done in team work require less time to accomplish as there are many helping hands available which is not the case when work done alone. The speaker on other hand points out that it is far more complicated to come to a mutual consensus since everyone in a group has distinct ideas. Thus, if one of the member reject the plan then again another meeting have to held for further discussion.
Finally, the reading passage notes that working in a team allow individual to shine because voice of a group speakes louder than a voice of a member alone. The professer rebuts this argument. He puts forth the idea that since it is the team work, not an individual is appreciated for work success. Therefore, no individual shines alone, instead whole group is responsible for successful project.
To sum up, the author and lecturer holds very conflicting vies on team work. The speaker effectively challenges the cliams made in the article.
The reading and lecture are both about the project assembled by a team. The author of the reading states that work can be done efficiently in a group. The lecturer disagrees. He mentions involving people means creation of distinct ideas which could make work even more complicated and attacks each of the claims made in the article.
Firstly, the author begins by stating that in a team members come up with varieties of ideas and views which results in a productive output. Similarly, even if any problem occur, the joint effort of team can easily resolve it. The professor believes there are flaws in the writer’s position. He contends that if any mistake happen to create by any member, everyone is responsible for it and not a single member who done the mistake however each and everyone have to compensate.
Secondly, according to the writing project done in team work require less time to accomplish as there are many helping hands available which is not the case when work done alone. The speaker on other hand points out that it is far more complicated to come to a mutual consensus since everyone in a group has distinct ideas. Thus, if one of the member reject the plan then again another meeting have to held for further discussion.
Finally, the reading passage notes that working in a team allow individual to shine because voice of a group speaks louder than a voice of a member alone. The professor rebuts this argument. He puts forth the idea that since it is the team work, not an individual is appreciated for work success. Therefore, no individual shines alone, instead whole group is responsible for successful project.
To sum up, the author and lecturer holds very conflicting vies on team work. The speaker effectively challenges the claims made in the article.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 153, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ork can be done efficiently in a group. The lecturer disagrees. He mentions involvi...
^^^
Line 2, column 54, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'member'?
Suggestion: member
...author begins by stating that in a team members come up with varieties of ideas and vie...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, similarly, so, then, therefore, thus, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => 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: 1486.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 307.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 4.84039087948 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18585898806 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55216663258 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.550488599349 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 470.7 419.366225166 112% => 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: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.9140419879 49.2860985944 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.4117647059 110.228320801 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0588235294 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.35294117647 7.06452816374 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.459136339689 0.272083759551 169% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.136244481278 0.0996497079465 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.138693997788 0.0662205650399 209% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.262770534288 0.162205337803 162% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.246252298484 0.0443174109184 556% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.4 13.3589403974 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.5 12.2367328918 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.98 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.