First, some members got free rides. That is, some didn’t work hard but got recognition for the success nontheless. This also indicates that people who worked hard were not given recognition they should have gotten. In other words, they weren’t given the opportunity to “shine”. This directly contradicts what the passage indicates.
Second, groups were slow in progress. The passage says that groups are more responsive than individuals because of the number of people involved and their aggregated resources. However, the speaker talks about how the firm found out that groups were slower than individuals in decision making. Groups needed more time for meetings, which are necessary procedures in decision making. This was another place where experience contradicted theory.
Third, influential people might emerge and lead the group towards glory or failure. If the influent people are going in the right direction there would be no problem. But in cases where they go in the wrong direction, there is nobody that has enough influence to counter the decision made. In other words, the group might turn into a dictatorship, with the influential party as the leader, and might become less flexible in its thinking. They might become one-sided, and thus fail to succeed.
Once you can read past what seem to be the results of poor typing, this Benchmark 5 does an excellent job of presenting the points about the contribution and recognition of group members as well as about speed of group decisions. The final paragraph contains one noticeable error (“influent”), which is then used correctly two sentences later (“influential”). Overall, this is a successful response and scored within (though perhaps not at the top of) the 5 level.
The lecture revises the idea presented in the text, that Rembrandt was not the artist who painted the famous painting "Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet”.
The inconsistency between the white cap, which identifies the woman as a servant, and the expensive fur collar she wears dissolves as the Professor explains that the fur collar was apparently painted over the original painting to increase its worth by displaying an aristocratic woman.
In addition, the assumption that light and shadow in the painting do not fit together is refuted by the fact that in the original painting, the woman wears a light cloth that illuminated her face. Thus the presentation of light and shadow was indeed very realistic and accurate, as it is characteristic of Rembrandt’s paintings.
Finally, the mystery of the panel consisting of patches glued together is also solved in the lecture.
Actually, the wood panel was later enlarged to make it more grand and valuable, but the original painting was painted on a single panel, as Rembrandt would have done it. Furthermore, the wood is of the same tree used in other Rembrandt paintings, like the "Self-Portrait with a Hat”.