Group Think
The reading passage and the lecture both are about the effects of assembling groups to solve tasks on the outcomes. The author presents points noting that it helps in multiple ways positively. The lecturer rebuts these points and provides arguments to support his position.
To begin with, the author notes that a team of individuals with varied backgrounds and different parts and levels of an organization accounts for a better exchange of information and knowledge. The final decision can be taken holistically with the skills, interests, and intellect of people in a team. The lecturer challenges this point by referring to the term "groupthink" which is responsible for disastrous group decisions. It refers to the tendency of group members to conform to the decision of a group as a whole. Ignorance towards the arguments provided for alternative solutions may lead to irrational and unsatisfactory results.
Secondly, the author points out that the group decision is better since the responsibility of possible failure is spread over all participants rather than an individual. The lecturer's counterargument to this point is that team members are, in fact, more vulnerable and prone to make mistakes while working in a group. He explains this with an example of a law enforcement agency's failure to catch a criminal. Basically, the overconfidence that a single individual cannot outsmart a group of highly intellectual people resulted in failure.
Lastly, it is mentioned in the passage that the group encourages motivation among team members. Consequently, people can better analyze their skills and capabilities while working in a group. The speaker rejects this claim by pointing out that the team members usually reassure one another of the righteousness of their decision. They simply reject any idea that doesn't fit their beliefs. The lecturer gave an example of the Ford motor company's futile attempt to start a new chapter of the automobile industry that resulted in a marketing disaster. It almost led to bankruptcy of the firm and the cause can be attributed to its upper management being a victim of groupthink.
To sum up, the author believes that working in a group for important decision-making works pretty well. However, the lecturer believes otherwise and argues that it may prove to be counterproductive.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-01 | meet96301 | 70 | view |
| 2019-10-04 | inessad | 71 | view |
| 2019-09-24 | kshinichi | 71 | view |
| 2019-05-08 | adhgna@gmail.com | 76 | view |
| 2016-12-08 | naveenmacd | 55 | view |
- The effectiveness of a country s leaders is best measured by examining the well being of that country s citizens 73
- Dog Breeding 80
- Earthworms and its effects on soil plants and animals 78
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement The government should add taxes to unhealthy foods to improve people s health Use details and examples to support your opinion 70
- Study of cooperation and conflict between same age groups children 85
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 194, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...t it helps in multiple ways positively. The lecturer rebuts these points and provid...
^^^
Line 5, column 175, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lecturers'' or 'lecturer's'?
Suggestion: lecturers'; lecturer's
...icipants rather than an individual. The lecturers counterargument to this point is that t...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 364, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ision. They simply reject any idea that doesnt fit their beliefs. The lecturer gave an...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, however, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, well, while, in fact, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 55.0 30.3222958057 181% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1984.0 1373.03311258 144% => OK
No of words: 372.0 270.72406181 137% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.33333333333 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.39173103935 4.04702891845 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19059636923 2.5805825403 124% => OK
Unique words: 206.0 145.348785872 142% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.55376344086 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 611.1 419.366225166 146% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 13.0662251656 153% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.9614926846 49.2860985944 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.2 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.65 7.06452816374 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less 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: 0.178564188379 0.272083759551 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0609619030214 0.0996497079465 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0774162322967 0.0662205650399 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.104710413863 0.162205337803 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0300787359294 0.0443174109184 68% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.63 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.94 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 63.6247240618 163% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 194, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...t it helps in multiple ways positively. The lecturer rebuts these points and provid...
^^^
Line 5, column 175, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lecturers'' or 'lecturer's'?
Suggestion: lecturers'; lecturer's
...icipants rather than an individual. The lecturers counterargument to this point is that t...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 364, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ision. They simply reject any idea that doesnt fit their beliefs. The lecturer gave an...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, however, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, well, while, in fact, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 55.0 30.3222958057 181% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1984.0 1373.03311258 144% => OK
No of words: 372.0 270.72406181 137% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.33333333333 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.39173103935 4.04702891845 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19059636923 2.5805825403 124% => OK
Unique words: 206.0 145.348785872 142% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.55376344086 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 611.1 419.366225166 146% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 13.0662251656 153% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.9614926846 49.2860985944 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.2 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.65 7.06452816374 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less 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: 0.178564188379 0.272083759551 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0609619030214 0.0996497079465 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0774162322967 0.0662205650399 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.104710413863 0.162205337803 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0300787359294 0.0443174109184 68% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.63 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.94 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 63.6247240618 163% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.