Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.
I would agree with the statement that scandals are useful to immediately draw attention to problems when compared with other means like that of a speaker and reformer. Scandals with their nature get reach farther and deeper in the society. Foe example: a scandal on an industrialist exploiting the venality of politicians could very well lead to exposure of a cover-up of rampant flouting of environmental laws by the industrialist thereby bringing the issue of pollution to cynosure.
What makes scandal work is the shock and awe factor it stirs in public in short time. Which is something that only an exceptional reformer with eloquence of high order may be able to achieve. A normal speaker or reformer may keep protesting and educating about a problem for long but due to limited exposure may not be able to exact the critical support amongst the community for a concrete action.
However, we must also consider the sustainability of actions on exposures through scandals and other mediums. In todays world where scandals have become more of a mean to draw public support or ire than a problem solving methodology it is vulnerable to exploitation by few. Reporting of a scandal is succeeded by ‘bigger’ scandals making it ‘Breaking News’ in the media. The actual corrective and reformative action on the problem brought out by previous ‘scandal’ is seldom addressed and followed. Culminating into only creating dogmatic views on problems. In that way reformers and speakers do a better job. They identify a problem, mobilize community, motivate, lead and try to find a solution to the problem. Theirs’ is a more sustainable effort than an ephemeral one brought about by Scandals.
Thus, it would be correct to say that scandals are a better medium when it comes to focusing attention on a problem in short time. But is it better than traditional means of a speaker or a reformer when it comes to providing a solution to problem is still debatable.
it stirs in public in short time
it stirs in public in a short time
but due to limited exposure may not be able to exact the critical support
but due to limited exposure which may not be able to exact the critical support
Sentence: In todays world where scandals have become more of a mean to draw public support or ire than a problem solving methodology it is vulnerable to exploitation by few.
Description: A noun, plural, common is not usually followed by a noun, singular, common
Suggestion: Refer to todays and world
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 328 350
No. of Characters: 1593 1500
No. of Different Words: 179 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.256 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.857 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.812 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 123 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 102 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 70 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 34 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.551 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.438 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.304 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.505 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.06 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5