Politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
The job of the politicians of the world, often times, cause them to be in conflict with each other, owing to their differences in ideals and their tendencies to push their own agendas through. The prompt suggests that politicians should reduce the schism between them and settle on a common ground instead of sticking to ideals that cannot, in reality, be achieved. I agree with the prompt for reasons that I elaborate below.
The political strife between opposing parties does not usually produce any good outcome. The result of such disagreements is often and endless series of meaningless debate. Often times, these issues involve making decisions about the wellness of the societies, and politicians meandering and fighting to prove that their policies are the best for the people do not really produce any outcome for these people. Take for instance the issue about the cost of healthcare. While there are many opposing views about whether the cost should be reduced or not, healthcare remains to be an expensive service to avail. Consequently, it is the people who are suffering with one of their very basic needs. If the politicians aimed to do good for the people, they would, unanimously, reach the conclusion of taking the abnormally high expenses of healthcare into account. By reaching a commonground, they would be able to delineate effective strategies and put them into action.
Moreover, not pursuing elusive ideals is important as well when politicians make their decisions. Extending the previous example of healthcare, it would seem very lucrative for a politician, in terms of their popularity, to advocate a "free-healthcare-for-all" policy. However, such a policy is clearly going to have detrimental effects on the healthcare field. Because this field relies on research, innovation, and the wellbeing of the doctors and nurses, obviously healthcare cannot me made free-of-cost. A politician pursuing such an elusive and delusional policy will only cause turbulence in the political arena, encumbering developments that would otherwise benefit all stakeholders in question, that is, the patients and the healthcare personnel.
Although it can be argued that opposing ideals from politicians help to maintain a balance that eventually elicits the best outcome, in most cases however, the disparity and elusiveness between politicians hinders progress and relegates a society into worse conditions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 234, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
... terms of their popularity, to advocate a 'free-healthcare-for-all' pol...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, however, if, moreover, really, so, well, while, for instance, in most cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.5258426966 72% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 33.0505617978 88% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 58.6224719101 89% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 12.9106741573 31% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2063.0 2235.4752809 92% => OK
No of words: 378.0 442.535393258 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.45767195767 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40933352052 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.26441412766 2.79657885939 117% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 215.323595506 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.574074074074 0.4932671777 116% => OK
syllable_count: 638.1 704.065955056 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.5423066102 60.3974514979 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.352941176 118.986275619 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2352941176 23.4991977007 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.23529411765 5.21951772744 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.137411066756 0.243740707755 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0480248541293 0.0831039109588 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0477547829586 0.0758088955206 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0873587174526 0.150359130593 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0350407281357 0.0667264976115 53% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 14.1392134831 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.8420337079 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.1743820225 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.68 12.1639044944 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.78 8.38706741573 117% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 100.480337079 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => 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: 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.