Both the reading and the listening discuss the effectiveness of the team working. The author describes that there are three main reasons to support the idea that group work is more beneficial than individual work. However, the lecturer casts doubt on this claim and brings up three reasons and elucidate some evidence to refute what is mentioned in the reading passage.
First of all, the writer points out that due to participating a large number of people in the group working, the wide range of knowledge, expertise and skills are provided. Nevertheless, the professor states that in group work many of the members get free ride and have no real contribution in planning and just benefit the group results and only a few members are well-involved and provide insight into the issues and problems.
Second, according to the reading, since more people get involved in team working, there are a great number of resources available, therefore, decision making is more quickly. While the lecturer brings up the idea that reaching unanimous decision takes much more time in group working due to the fact that they must attend many meetings, which takes so much time to reach a general consensus.
Third, the author proposes that being in team working is rewarding and provides a better feeling for the individuals who have voice in making decision and people in these groups have more chance to shine. However, the speaker asserts that one or two members are always have much more influence on the final decisions of the group, which may an obstacle to achieve the best because they might drop the other opinions and move the project in the wrong directions and if others try to warn other members, they will be ignored.
Therefore, the points mentioned in the reading do not make sense.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 63, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...er points out that due to participating a large number of people in the group working, the wide r...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 373, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'consensus'.
Suggestion: consensus
...gs, which takes so much time to reach a general consensus. Third, the author proposes that being...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 269, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'had'.
Suggestion: had
...erts that one or two members are always have much more influence on the final decisi...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, so, therefore, third, well, while, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 7.30242825607 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 13.0 22.412803532 58% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => 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: 1489.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 302.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 4.93046357616 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1687104957 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.49756032005 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.556291390728 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 457.2 419.366225166 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => 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: 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: 30.0 21.2450331126 141% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 72.531992941 49.2860985944 147% => OK
Chars per sentence: 148.9 110.228320801 135% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.2 21.698381199 139% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.9 7.06452816374 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.451178303573 0.272083759551 166% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.155832563775 0.0996497079465 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.108379456915 0.0662205650399 164% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.204161105854 0.162205337803 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.117059223585 0.0443174109184 264% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.9 13.3589403974 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.49 53.8541721854 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.0289183223 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.91 12.2367328918 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.73 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 10.498013245 133% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.