The reading and the lecture are both about teamwork, which is one of the approaches of working under a project. The author of the reading believes that working in a group is the best way to successfully approach new projects. However, the lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article. He thinks that teamwork isn’t the most effective way of working fast and productive.
First of all, the author points out that group of people can work faster and can come up with the highly creative solutions in contrast to separate members. This point is challenged by the lecturer. He says that sometimes group can work slow because they are not able to reach consensus. The process of finding agreement takes a lot of time and, in the end, not all of the members of a group will be happy and agree with the made decision.
Secondly, the author contends that taking part in a group process is very rewarding for particular members, that their decisions can be appreciated by others, and not only by them. The lecturer rebuts this argument. He asserts that sometimes there is a person in the group, who has an influence on most of the members and his ideas seem to be very creative for them. So the contrary ideas from other members don’t recognize and discuss at all.
Finally, the author states that individual member has more chance to “shine” while working in a group. The lecturer, on the other hand, posits that no names of particular people will be mentioned at the end of the group work. He puts forth the idea that if group work has a good result, the person, who works harder, and the person, who did nothing they will be appreciated by a boss the same.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 363, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...akes a lot of time and, in the end, not all of the members of a group will be happy and ag...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, while, in contrast, first of all, in contrast to, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => 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: 1391.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 299.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 4.65217391304 5.08290768461 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53602581642 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.528428093645 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 415.8 419.366225166 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.019168854 49.2860985944 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.7333333333 110.228320801 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9333333333 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.2 7.06452816374 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
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: 0.399325034771 0.272083759551 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.124037023833 0.0996497079465 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0811266394337 0.0662205650399 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.239049646182 0.162205337803 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0782098877813 0.0443174109184 176% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.4 13.3589403974 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 69.11 53.8541721854 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.3 11.0289183223 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.69 12.2367328918 79% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.69 8.42419426049 91% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => 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.