Both text and lecture are contrasting in nature. While text argues about the benefits of teams working on a project, the lecturer casts serious doubts over all the arguments made by text. First of all, lecturer refutes the claim that teams will be swift in start working on the project. As per lecturer, the process of building consensus is long and it consumes a lot of time. Numerous meetings and discussions are carried out in order to reach an agreement.
Secondly, lecturer disagrees with the text on decision making. According to lecturer, the decision making could have significant downside effects if whole team is not participating actively. Lecturer cites example of having influential team members taking all the decisions and nobody is daring to oppose them. This way the core idea of group working is destroyed and creativity, new ideas will stop from emerging. In addition to it, Lecturer claims that whenever the team doesn't perform as per expectation then the blame can be pointed on everyone, while the decision was taken by only few members of team.
Thirdly, there will be problem of free riders as per lecturer. Text claims that everyone participates in a team work. According to lecturer,it represents and ideal situation. However, in reality, there will be members who will just ride off the hard working members. So, what would be the downside? Lecturer states that it might lead to dissatisfaction when whole credit of success is shared with the team. Individual creativity becomes lost and unrecognized in such working systems.
Finally, Text claims that, individual team members can also shine by contributing creatively towards team objective. The lecturer refutes the idea by saying, if the recognition is shared between all the members of the team then it might lead to dissatisfaction between the team members who have worked hard towards the cause. Leading to conflicts and future problems.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 474, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... Lecturer claims that whenever the team doesnt perform as per expectation then the bla...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 140, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , it
...es in a team work. According to lecturer,it represents and ideal situation. However...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, while, in addition, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 22.412803532 54% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1620.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 313.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17571884984 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20616286096 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73752143731 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 145.348785872 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.562300319489 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 486.9 419.366225166 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.23620309051 49% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 13.0662251656 153% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.5493962638 49.2860985944 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 81.0 110.228320801 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.65 21.698381199 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.8 7.06452816374 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.345388757483 0.272083759551 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.09842759396 0.0996497079465 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0694371708923 0.0662205650399 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.221169420493 0.162205337803 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0579341754785 0.0443174109184 131% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.8 13.3589403974 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 53.8541721854 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 63.6247240618 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.