Some people believe that in order to be effective, political leaders must yield to public opinion and abandon principle for the sake of compromise. Others believe that the most essential quality of an effective leader is the ability to remain consistently committed to particular principles and objectives.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
Making politic is one of the most difficult and perceptive virtue in the professional life. We cannot say everyone could do politic. Foremost, generally, it requires thinking in cunning way. Not always but usually. Person who want to be statesman must be able to manage people. In addition, political leaders should be able to compromise, sometimes between two different group, sometimes with themselves. The main question is that they should be open to disclaim their principles for sake of compromise in needed cases or they should be committed to principles and objectives in any situation. This is very contradictive topic.
First of all, no doubt, the major qualification of political leaders is keeping consistency in the folk. The second most important quality is providing fair environment. To carry out this harmony, sometimes, they need to enlarge some principles. They must tend to make concessions for preventing possible disruptions among people. The skillful point is its extent. Yes, I agree with that extending or abandoning some principles would be logical and could save people from terrible situations. However, these concessions should not damage to justice and not destroy established-system. As in everything, extent is the key point to keep it in ethics.
Despite to second paragraph, I would defend there must be some uncompromising topics to not compromise. Political leaders have to have principles which are determined strictly. Therefore, they would not permit people to abuse their common sense. For example, corruption, torpedo and other illegal things. If they would compromise or forgive this situation, inevitably, it will certainly repeat itself. Over time, the sense of justice would get worse, reliance of community would weaken. All of those would cause chaos. For these scenarios, political leaders must evaluate everything deliberately.
As a conclusion, justice is principle thing to make politic. Political leaders should give attention to this part and also, they should be able to make out people and keeping the folk in peace. By doing so, they should be careful. Of course, they should compromise with people but there must be strict principle which they should not abandon.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 372, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'group' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'groups'.
Suggestion: groups
...romise, sometimes between two different group, sometimes with themselves. The main qu...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n. This is very contradictive topic. First of all, no doubt, the major qualif...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the key point to keep it in ethics. Despite to second paragraph, I would def...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...st evaluate everything deliberately. As a conclusion, justice is principle th...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, second, so, therefore, for example, in addition, no doubt, of course, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 26.0 12.4196629213 209% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 11.3162921348 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 33.0505617978 91% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 58.6224719101 77% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1883.0 2235.4752809 84% => OK
No of words: 348.0 442.535393258 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.41091954023 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31911543099 4.55969084622 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94156745029 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 215.323595506 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.568965517241 0.4932671777 115% => OK
syllable_count: 582.3 704.065955056 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 6.24550561798 208% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 20.2370786517 138% => OK
Sentence length: 12.0 23.0359550562 52% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.5103249305 60.3974514979 60% => OK
Chars per sentence: 67.25 118.986275619 57% => More chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 12.4285714286 23.4991977007 53% => More words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 4.03571428571 5.21951772744 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.83258426966 186% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.239881529343 0.243740707755 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0584660890206 0.0831039109588 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0545875263953 0.0758088955206 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.154453702257 0.150359130593 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0129072944271 0.0667264976115 19% => 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: 10.3 14.1392134831 73% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.84 48.8420337079 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.2 12.1743820225 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.21 12.1639044944 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 100.480337079 87% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 11.8971910112 50% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 6.8 11.2143820225 61% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.