People in daily lives would frequently do the jobs that need creativity, such as the job you have never done before. Under this circumstance, do you prefer to work alone or work with others?
In this day and age, fierce competition in work requires people to develop collaboration skills to outcompete their competitors. However, sometimes disagreements in teams generate huge conflicts, imposing negative effect on work efficiency and the harmonious atmosphere, especially when the jobs need creativity. This topic has aroused heated debate in social media. As far as I am concerned, I highly recommend that people work together while striving to put forward ideas.
Initially, discussion among teammates helps to evoke people’s inspiration and motivation. More precisely, a person may get stucked in a dilemma that he can never come up with a solution to solve the problem. However, someone who is expert in other fields can propose valuable suggestions and eventually find the way out. Take myself as an example, I participated in an entrepreneurship challenge in Shanghai last month. All candidates were split into 12 groups and were asked to create a new business model for a Fintech startup. Since I have never experienced this type of challenge before, I was so puzzled that I could not figure out people’s urgent demands to devise an unique business model. Fortunately, a splendid idea occurred to one of our teammates majoring in insurance that we could build an insurance information platform to address the information asymmetry in the insurance market. Thanks to our efficient cooperation, we persuaded the judgers to believe in our business model and made a hit.
Granted, someone may assert that at times teammates’ perspectives contradict each other, so that it is too time and energy consuming to unify the views within teams. We cannot deny that collaboration may has reverse influence on projects, for some people stick to their own way of thinking or refute others impolitely. Nevertheless, plausible as it sounds, the idea does not hold water. Innovation needs the collision of minds, therefore, only when people with divergent education background gather together can they think over issues they have never mediated before. For instance, scientists and financiers integrated computer technology with finance to create robot advisors, a totally new way of investment.
In conclusion, according to the above mentioned reasons, It is considerably essential to cooperate with others to spark innovation. As long as teammates respect each other, trivial arguments, with no doubt, can facilitate the work process, helping them to examine their work in a relative early stage.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-10-25 | Boris | 73 | view |
| 2019-11-19 | change_gc | 91 | view |
| 2019-04-28 | AnthonyStonehill | 40 | view |
| 2019-02-12 | Shirley Lu | 97 | view |
- People in daily lives would frequently do the jobs that need creativity such as the job you have never done before Under this circumstance do you prefer to work alone or work with others 97
- People in daily lives would frequently do the jobs that need creativity, such as the job you have never done before. Under this circumstance, do you prefer to work alone or work with others? 83
- Parents give their children weekly money to buy whatever they want. Some people think this can cause bad habits and ideas about money in children. Others think the opposite. What's your opinion? 90
- At some universities, students take part in making decisions about the issues that affect daily life of everyone on campus, such as how many hours that the libraries should be open each day or what kinds of food should be served in the cafeteria. But at s 86
- Do you agree or disagree with the way a person dressed is a good indication of his/her personality or character? 80
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 682, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
... people's urgent demands to devise an unique business model. Fortunately, a s...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, may, nevertheless, so, therefore, while, for instance, in conclusion, no doubt
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 15.1003584229 40% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 9.8082437276 112% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 13.8261648746 65% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 43.0788530466 77% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 52.1666666667 109% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 8.0752688172 235% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2131.0 1977.66487455 108% => OK
No of words: 392.0 407.700716846 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.4362244898 4.8611393121 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44960558625 4.48103885553 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09233237591 2.67179642975 116% => OK
Unique words: 251.0 212.727598566 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.640306122449 0.524837075471 122% => OK
syllable_count: 679.5 618.680645161 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 9.59856630824 73% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.6003584229 92% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.1344086022 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.4438483735 48.9658058833 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.157894737 100.406767564 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6315789474 20.6045352989 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.78947368421 5.45110844103 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 11.8709677419 93% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88709677419 61% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.185336607868 0.236089414692 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0474852600194 0.076458572812 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0440051480911 0.0737576698707 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113901350239 0.150856017488 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0440646865995 0.0645574589148 68% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 11.7677419355 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 58.1214874552 74% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 10.1575268817 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.27 10.9000537634 131% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.95 8.01818996416 124% => OK
difficult_words: 132.0 86.8835125448 152% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.002688172 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.0537634409 99% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.247311828 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.