The speaker argues that team work might not always be beneficial to the team members as well as the company they work for. This calls into question the reading which stated that team work is advantageous.
According to the speaker, there were some members in each of the surveyed teams, that got away without doing any work. They got the recognition for the work that their team did. Whereas, the ones who provided useful insights did not get special recognition. The group as a whole was extolled. This goes against the reading which claims that team work is very rewading for all the individuals involved.
Also, from the lecture we know that it takes more time for the team to come up with a unanimous plan of action. People have different opinions about what might or might not work and it takes up time to convince people. Thus, team projects take up more time. This is contrary to the reading which implies that teams can expedite the completion of a task as there are more brains, and hence more resources working on the problem at the same time.
Finally, the speaker contends that individual does not get the credit for his good work, but the team does. It was observed that there were certain members who were more influential and their opinions had a greater impact on the team. As a result a few good ideas weren’t explored as they didnot seem fruitful to these people. In the same way, there were certain inexpedient ideas that were implemented, inspite of some members warning against them. Thus the team was criticized or rewarded based on decisions of a few people rather than the whole team. Whereas, the reading states that each meber has better chance of being recognized in a team than individually, because a team can produce momentous results.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 455, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...e of some members warning against them. Thus the team was criticized or rewarded bas...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'finally', 'hence', 'if', 'so', 'thus', 'well', 'whereas', 'as a result', 'as well as', 'in the same way']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.216374269006 0.261695866417 83% => OK
Verbs: 0.184210526316 0.158904122519 116% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0818713450292 0.0723426182421 113% => OK
Adverbs: 0.046783625731 0.0435111971325 108% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0321637426901 0.0277247811725 116% => OK
Prepositions: 0.119883040936 0.128828473217 93% => OK
Participles: 0.0438596491228 0.0370669169778 118% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.39204772395 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0175438596491 0.0208969081088 84% => OK
Particles: 0.00877192982456 0.00154638098197 567% => OK
Determiners: 0.131578947368 0.128158765124 103% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0146198830409 0.0158828679856 92% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0233918128655 0.0114777025283 204% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1772.0 1645.83664459 108% => OK
No of words: 309.0 271.125827815 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.73462783172 6.08160592843 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1926597562 4.04852973271 104% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.288025889968 0.374372842146 77% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.236245954693 0.287516216867 82% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.139158576052 0.187439937562 74% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.0711974110032 0.113142543107 63% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.39204772395 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.537216828479 0.539623497131 100% => OK
Word variations: 55.7200974055 53.8517498576 103% => OK
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0529801325 130% => OK
Sentence length: 18.1764705882 21.7502111507 84% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.2777845103 49.3711431718 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.235294118 132.220823453 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1764705882 21.7502111507 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.705882352941 0.878197800319 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.39072847682 29% => OK
Readability: 41.8010660575 50.5018328374 83% => OK
Elegance: 1.44444444444 1.90840788429 76% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.59382142293 0.549887131256 108% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.107107313229 0.142949733639 75% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0694570638459 0.0787303798458 88% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.53429408809 0.631733273073 85% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.146798663635 0.139662658121 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.22671790932 0.266732575781 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.083893904743 0.103435571967 81% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.418750289122 0.414875509568 101% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.092519557517 0.0530846634433 174% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.420732977187 0.40443939384 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0359474270278 0.0528353158467 68% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.26048565121 141% => OK
Positive topic words: 7.0 3.49668874172 200% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 3.62251655629 83% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 3.1766004415 157% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 10.2958057395 146% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.