According to the passage, many organizations find team working as an effective way to contribute to realization of projects through assigned tasks, where the companionship and the sense of belonging of the members in the group, will bring good results to the final product of the project.
By contrast, the author of the reading emphasized, through a real life example, how the companionship and sense of belonging can vary and harshly affect the final product of the project if the members of the group won’t work and develop in harmony, being counterproductive to what an exercise in a organization was looking up to.
First, the author of the reading suggest that since working in form of teamworks requires a group of people running for the same goal, the distribution of tasks plus the experience and knowledge of every individual member of the group, may lead to capacity and, by means, production.
Likewise, the professor in the lecture contradicts this “theory” of productiveness and continued with his example: the teamworks formed by the company weren’t quick at all, it took many meetings to agree in many aspects, so the distribution of the time wasn’t adequate; time was being lost and the members weren’t, obviously, getting to a common ground.
The second point the author of the reading suggest is that being in a teamwork is an open door to get more creative and out of box ideas, that would later lead to further actions and final solutions; these creative thoughts may be risky to take in count, but it’s more common to jump to them while working in a team of several people since the group as a whole is responsible of this decision, being this one assertive or not.
The teamworks in the example that the professor of the lecture is presenting weren’t more likely to be open about these creatives ideas that two of the most influencers members of the group were having, being this an issue since the rest of the group decided to ignore them completely; not all the members were up to try risky solutions.
Lastly, the author of the reading comments that since the results of a team work have greater scope than the ones of individual outcomes, the individuals members have more opportunities to shine. Nonetheless, through the example of the professor of the lecture, is stated that working in teamworks can also be sketchy since the recognition of the work is given to the team itself rather than particular members, the recognition is given in general ways even if there was only one active member working hard in the project.
In conclusion, the author of the reading find team working like an excellent opportunity to put together a project through different people, being this a tactic for organizations with several advantages. The author of the lecture appear to disagree, exposing how in the real life, team working can become the opposite to productiveness and can affect a whole project.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 302, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...ounterproductive to what an exercise in a organization was looking up to. Firs...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, lastly, likewise, look, may, nonetheless, second, so, while, in conclusion, in general
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 10.4613686534 201% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 90.0 30.3222958057 297% => Less preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2479.0 1373.03311258 181% => OK
No of words: 496.0 270.72406181 183% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.99798387097 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71922212354 4.04702891845 117% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92649653877 2.5805825403 113% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 145.348785872 154% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.451612903226 0.540411800872 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 764.1 419.366225166 182% => 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: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 2.5761589404 272% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 49.0 21.2450331126 231% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 81.3339412546 49.2860985944 165% => OK
Chars per sentence: 247.9 110.228320801 225% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 49.6 21.698381199 229% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 10.8 7.06452816374 153% => OK
Paragraphs: 8.0 4.09492273731 195% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
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: 0.117142184951 0.272083759551 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0647333644605 0.0996497079465 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0441869458106 0.0662205650399 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0625173266575 0.162205337803 39% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0533681639881 0.0443174109184 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 26.9 13.3589403974 201% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: 30.2 53.8541721854 56% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 21.2 11.0289183223 192% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.61 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.28 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 63.6247240618 159% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 29.0 10.7273730684 270% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 21.6 10.498013245 206% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 22.0 11.2008830022 196% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
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.