Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.
Scandals are basically uncovering of truth about the events either unknown or believed to be different than they actually are. The statement contends that scandals are useful as they are better in polarizing our attention on issues than any speaker or reformer. This hypothesis relies on our past experiences of infamous scandals and the consequent shifting of the focus of the masses on issues rarely discussed before. However, a deep analysis of the consequences of the scandals would prove that the claimed in its entirety is specious.
Foremost, the ability of scandals in shifting the focus of the people is dependent upon their background. Every individual has different level of awareness about the problems engulfing the society. For those who are sincerely aware about the social issues, e.g. political, social or human rights activist, don't need any external stimulus to make them more focused. On the contrary, for the people with limited awareness, scandals have a greater potential than any speakers or reformers in polarizing their attention to problems which they have so far been inattentive to. This majority, in general, have a tendency of not giving thoughts to social issues either due to their perceived inability to change things around, or in an attempt to avoid augmenting of already existing high levels stress due to personal life issues. When outrageous scandals, such as ‘#meetoo’ and Abu Ghuraib, come to the fore, the conscience of the general masses are shaken which forces them to take a stand and raise a voice on the issue - albeit temporarily.
Yet, despite this attention focusing potential, the usefulness of scandals is limited. It varies from being an instigator for a mass protest, like one relating to sexual violence, to just being a topic of dinner conversation - an example being celebrity sex-tapes. The former may galvanize a mass protest and pressurizes the concerned authorities to take bold steps and even draft stricter laws. However, after that sudden temporary outburst people resume their daily chores even though the problem may still be existing. But since there is no media coverage or hype, there is no scandal, and therefore no mass agitations. In some cases, the problem becomes a new normal when people get fed up with the recurrence of one scandal after the other. The brutal 2012 Delhi Rape and murder scandal is a telling example. This lead to a spate of public protests across India and forced the government to enact new stricter laws on sexual assault including capital punishment. But then when the tempers were calmed down, incidents of sexual violence continued throughout the length and breadth of the country but apparently got accepted as an unchangeable scenario.
Moreover, though scandals may catalyze the Justice process in some specific cases but can never eradicate the problem from its root. Considering the previous examples, while the '#metoo' scandal deterred the culprits and in some cases led to prosecution; it didn't solve the problem of workplace sexual violence. Similarly, the Abu Ghuraib scandal did help the victims to get the justice but was not enough to completely address the general issue of modern war crimes. To address the problem at its core, long-term focus and struggles are required in contrast to short-term focus and some sporadic protests which the scandals facilitate. This can only be achieved through the laborious perseverance of reformers and speakers. It is for this reason that no parallel can be drawn between the success of King’s or Mandela’s movements and the Rodney King or George Floyd’s scandal in securing the civil rights of the Blacks.
In the final analysis, while scandals do help to shift the attention of, otherwise indifferent, majority of the people; that attention and its benefits are short-lived and limited. Eradicating pressing issues from their roots have always warranted long-term struggles and constant focus which are only achievable through the sustained efforts of speakers and reformers.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 104, Rule ID: RATHER_THEN[2]
Message: Did you mean 'different 'from''? 'Different than' is often considered colloquial style.
Suggestion: from
...her unknown or believed to be different than they actually are. The statement conten...
^^^^
Line 1, column 293, Rule ID: PAST_EXPERIENCE_MEMORY[1]
Message: Use simply 'experiences'.
Suggestion: experiences
...reformer. This hypothesis relies on our past experiences of infamous scandals and the consequent...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 307, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...tical, social or human rights activist, dont need any external stimulus to make them...
^^^^
Line 7, column 257, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...nd in some cases led to prosecution; it didnt solve the problem of workplace sexual v...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, apparently, but, e.g., however, if, may, moreover, similarly, so, still, then, therefore, while, in contrast, in general, such as, in contrast to, in some cases, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.5258426966 133% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 31.0 14.8657303371 209% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 92.0 58.6224719101 157% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3400.0 2235.4752809 152% => OK
No of words: 647.0 442.535393258 146% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25502318393 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.04343084457 4.55969084622 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72103872579 2.79657885939 97% => OK
Unique words: 350.0 215.323595506 163% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.540958268934 0.4932671777 110% => OK
syllable_count: 1055.7 704.065955056 150% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 10.0 4.38483146067 228% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 20.2370786517 133% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.4148358165 60.3974514979 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.925925926 118.986275619 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.962962963 23.4991977007 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.92592592593 5.21951772744 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 20.0 5.13820224719 389% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.264106986525 0.243740707755 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0712281894728 0.0831039109588 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.069768750935 0.0758088955206 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.148286165804 0.150359130593 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0447705993176 0.0667264976115 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 14.1392134831 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.8420337079 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.1639044944 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.59 8.38706741573 114% => OK
difficult_words: 197.0 100.480337079 196% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.