Summarise the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on specific points made in the reading passage.
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 author in the reading passage states that many organizations think of assembling people in groups to approach certain projects as beneficial. The speaker in the listening section disavows the above idea and cites real life examples based on a survey, thus countering the reasoning stated by the author in the reading section.
Firstly, the author suggests that assembling a group helps in gleaning together a wider range of knowledge, expertise, skills and other resources that can help in the precipitate and creative solutions. Also this results in the distribution of responsibility and the accountability of the tasks which encourages the individuals in a group to take risky decisions that they other wise woudn't have preffered considering. The speaker argues that in real life, studies show that in most teams some people are 'free riders'. They take the benefit of working in a team. They contribute in minimal amounts to the task but derive the benefits of the team's accomplishments. The speaker says that the members who did most of the work don't get the recognition but rather the team as a whole get's recognized, engendering a negative impact on the motivation of these members. Also as a team they took a longer amount of time to reach a consensus about the course of the project the team would adopt for its succesful completion.
Secondly, the author states that taking part in such a team can be 'rewarding' as people who had an active part in the team's success and have highly influenced the team's path of success can get his/her contributions recognized, as the team's overall accomplishments have a greater magnitude than an individual's accomplishments. The speaker weighs in this matter by stating that, it has been observed in studies that in these cases a member or some members might become highly influential in a team. This results in the team mostly complying with that individual's vision for the team's success even though at times the team has already been making progress based on a particular set of ideas. Failure due to such influencers in the teams results in the whole team suffering the blame and taking the hit.
In sum, this is an complex issue and the speaker provide real life examples from a study to cast doubts on the reading passage as stated above.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 203, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...the precipitate and creative solutions. Also this results in the distribution of res...
^^^^
Line 2, column 373, Rule ID: OTHER_WISE_OTHERWISE[1]
Message: Did you mean 'otherwise'?
Suggestion: otherwise
...group to take risky decisions that they other wise woudnt have preffered considering. The ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 722, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...at the members who did most of the work dont get the recognition but rather the team...
^^^^
Line 2, column 861, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...act on the motivation of these members. Also as a team they took a longer amount of ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 118, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'teams'' or 'team's'?
Suggestion: teams'; team's
...as people who had an active part in the teams success and have highly influenced the ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 163, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'teams'' or 'team's'?
Suggestion: teams'; team's
... success and have highly influenced the teams path of success can get his/her contrib...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 575, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'teams'' or 'team's'?
Suggestion: teams'; team's
...ng with that individuals vision for the teams success even though at times the team h...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 17, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...me and taking the hit. In sum, this is an complex issue and the speaker provide r...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 30.3222958057 178% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1906.0 1373.03311258 139% => OK
No of words: 387.0 270.72406181 143% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.92506459948 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43534841618 4.04702891845 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82652379398 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 145.348785872 136% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.509043927649 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 582.3 419.366225166 139% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 21.2450331126 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 64.7948489386 49.2860985944 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.142857143 110.228320801 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.6428571429 21.698381199 127% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.07142857143 7.06452816374 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 4.19205298013 191% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 4.33554083885 231% => 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: 0.169838383229 0.272083759551 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0702249650374 0.0996497079465 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0696071332076 0.0662205650399 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113346914931 0.162205337803 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0361483306907 0.0443174109184 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 13.3589403974 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.53 53.8541721854 98% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 11.0289183223 114% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.61 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.73 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 63.6247240618 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.7273730684 135% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.498013245 122% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.