The article of the reading states that working as a group for a new project have plenty of advantages and he provides three reasons for support. However, the lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. He is of the opinion that these explanations are faulty.
First, the author of the reading states that a group of people working as a team has in-depth knowledge, experience, technical skills than a single brain in the project. The article mentions that with greater resources and a wide range of knowledge the project may come out with proper solutions to the issues. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. He claims this by providing an example: In a company, a new project is assigned to a group of people and their performance was analyzed after 6 months it showed they didn't contribute much and most of the work is on pending and apparently, the team members didn't involve as they could. And in the end, the project was not submitted on time.
Secondly, the writer suggests that a group is more ready to take the risk if they face any problems. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by mentioning that if a team performs well the entire recognization is given to the whole team on the other hand if a single person in the team ruins the work complete blame is on the entire team. He also states that some projects didn't move very quickly because of many consensuses. In addition to that many meetings need to held to build agree among group members.
Finally, the author posits that group members who have more standards over the subject have more influence over the entire team. The lecturer opposes this point by saying that in a team there are 1 or 2 influential people with good knowledge, in fact, they are capable to drive the entire team but, they never got their importance unfortunately, team members dropped there ideas. On the other hand, the other people in the group begin to say that the project is going in a different direction.
.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 532, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
... analyzed after 6 months it showed they didnt contribute much. Secondly, the write...
^^^^^
Line 6, column 350, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...eam. He also states that some projects didnt move very quickly because of many conse...
^^^^^
Line 8, column 507, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...ject is going in a different direction. .
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, well, in addition, in fact, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1510.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 317.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 4.76340694006 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21953715646 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55445034514 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.520504731861 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 461.7 419.366225166 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.1419796354 49.2860985944 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.857142857 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6428571429 21.698381199 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 7.06452816374 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.3589403974 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.62 12.2367328918 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.07 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.