This article states that the best way to approaching a new project is to make a team and provides three reasons of support. However , the professor explains that one company failed to work as a team and refutes each of the author's reasons .
First, the reading claims that in a group the people have a wider range of knowledge and experience . The professor refutes this point. He states that some of the employee works hard for the project and other get a free ride . They didn't contribute much. The recognition gone to the group as a whole and the individuals who worked hard are side lined.
Second, the article posits that creative solutions come from a group. However, the professor says that it took many days for the group person to come up with a decision how to move with the project. According to him, more influential individual try to establish their idea. Sometime some great ideas are dripped due to this individual influential person.
Third, the reading says that individual team member has a much better chance to shine in a group. The professor opposes this point by explaining that here the individual’s performance is not evaluated rather the group is punished for its failure. He states that due to this when the project failed the full responsibility falls upon the group , not any individual member.
- "Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increasingly more time to covering national news and less time to covering weather and local news. During the same time period, most of the complaints we received from viewers were concerned wit 45
- TOEFL T P O 2 - Integrated Writing Task 3
- In many organizations, perhaps the best way to approach certain new projects is to assemble a group of people into a team. Having a team of people attack a project offers several advantages. First of all, a group of people has a wider range of knowledge, 65
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers. 50
- An international development organization, in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus, has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A. While seeds for this new type of millet cost more, farmers will be p 43
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 132, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...ovides three reasons of support. However , the professor explains that one company...
^^
Line 1, column 239, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
... and refutes each of the authors reasons . First, the reading claims that in a ...
^^
Line 3, column 100, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
... wider range of knowledge and experience . The professor refutes this point. He st...
^^
Line 3, column 152, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...ssor refutes this point. He states that some of the employee works hard for the project and...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 225, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...or the project and other get a free ride . They didnt contribute much. The recogni...
^^
Line 3, column 233, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...roject and other get a free ride . They didnt contribute much. The recognition gone t...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 348, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...full responsibility falls upon the group , not any individual member.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, second, so, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => 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: 1107.0 1373.03311258 81% => OK
No of words: 227.0 270.72406181 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.87665198238 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.88156143495 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68107259647 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 131.0 145.348785872 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.577092511013 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 337.5 419.366225166 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.1939993542 49.2860985944 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 79.0714285714 110.228320801 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.2142857143 21.698381199 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.71428571429 7.06452816374 38% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 4.19205298013 167% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => 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: 9.7 13.3589403974 73% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.73 12.2367328918 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.63 8.42419426049 91% => OK
difficult_words: 46.0 63.6247240618 72% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => 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.