Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
This topic raises the controversial issue of whether scandals are more effective to attract people’s attention to a specific problem than any speaker or reformer. Indisputably, scandals are very powerful in focusing people’s attention. Nevertheless, there are some speakers and reformers than can attract people’s attention more effectively. Thus, I generally disagree with the claim and I would argue in some occasions speakers and reformers can do a better job in attracting population’s attention.
Whenever a scandal occurs, it is intensely promulgated through all the means of communication. News relating to a scandal appear in the first page of each newspaper, are copiously publicized in social networks and give rise to many TV programs relating to the subject. In addition, even if a person is too distracted to notice the occurrence of a scandal through this way, they will probably notice it when they talk to someone else who will almost certainly talk about it. Therefore, scandals are really efficacious in attracting people’s attention and one could easily think they are more effective than the discourse of any speaker or reformer.
However, not only scandals are promptly propagated but also the discourses of some speakers such as celebrities. An example of this is the actress Emma Watson who drew people’s attention to the problem of discrimination between sexes with a discourse she made some years ago, denouncing errors in the education of boys and girls. Her discourse was seen by millions of people around the world.
In addition, as fast as scandals infest people’s minds, they are forgotten, becoming useless in attracting people’s attention to a specific problem in the long-term. For example, throughout politics history, many scandals of corruption have existed. In spite, of people are momently aware that some politic is corrupt, some years later they completely forgot this and the politic is again elected in the polls. In these case as usually, the scandal was not enough for people to understand the problem, this is, they could not understand this politic was a corrupt. Instead, they are easily manipulated by their discourse, which is a very powerful tool.
In fact, a speaker or reformer who is talented in the art of convincing people can attract much more attention to a problem. One example of this is Hitler, who, in the last century was able to convince people Jews were a problem for society. It was not resorting on scandals he could catch their attention, but using demagogic techniques.
In conclusion, speakers and reformers can be as useful or even better as scandals in attracting people’s attention. A talented speaker or reformer can always draw people’s attention to a specific problem.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 565, Rule ID: DT_JJ_NO_NOUN[1]
Message: Probably a noun is missing in this part of the sentence.
...y could not understand this politic was a corrupt. Instead, they are easily manipulated b...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 71, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[3]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
...formers can be as useful or even better as scandals in attracting people's at...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'nevertheless', 'really', 'so', 'therefore', 'thus', 'for example', 'in addition', 'in conclusion', 'in fact', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.252354048964 0.240241500013 105% => OK
Verbs: 0.135593220339 0.157235817809 86% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0583804143126 0.0880659088768 66% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0772128060264 0.0497285424764 155% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0338983050847 0.0444667217837 76% => OK
Prepositions: 0.111111111111 0.12292977631 90% => OK
Participles: 0.0414312617702 0.0406280797675 102% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.10546807158 2.79330140395 111% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0244821092279 0.030933414821 79% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.0016655270985 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0979284369115 0.0997080785238 98% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0207156308851 0.0249443105267 83% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0131826741996 0.0148568991511 89% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2805.0 2732.02544248 103% => OK
No of words: 443.0 452.878318584 98% => OK
Chars per words: 6.33182844244 6.0361032391 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58776254615 4.58838876751 100% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.41309255079 0.366273622748 113% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.345372460497 0.280924506359 123% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.27539503386 0.200843997647 137% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.167042889391 0.132149295362 126% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10546807158 2.79330140395 111% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 219.290929204 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.487584650113 0.48968727796 100% => OK
Word variations: 54.6845445937 55.4138127331 99% => OK
How many sentences: 21.0 20.6194690265 102% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0952380952 23.380412469 90% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.6271046832 59.4972553346 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.571428571 141.124799967 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0952380952 23.380412469 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.714285714286 0.674092028746 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.94800884956 121% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.21349557522 38% => OK
Readability: 55.6324841449 51.4728631049 108% => OK
Elegance: 1.64122137405 1.64882698954 100% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.341463404977 0.391690518653 87% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.102106435616 0.123202303941 83% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0773527578053 0.077325440228 100% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.553959519293 0.547984918172 101% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.145863957266 0.149214159877 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.134615917736 0.161403998019 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0706731706306 0.0892212321368 79% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.340459527279 0.385218514788 88% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0432774293797 0.0692045440612 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.2239184072 0.275328986314 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.037931727812 0.0653680567796 58% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.4325221239 86% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 5.30420353982 207% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.88274336283 20% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 6.0 7.22455752212 83% => OK
Negative topic words: 11.0 3.66592920354 300% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.70907079646 37% => OK
Total topic words: 18.0 13.5995575221 132% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.