2. Some people claim that the goal of politics should be the pursuit of an ideal. Others argue that the goal should be finding common ground and reaching reasonable consensus.
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
The word utopia means “an ideal world” but it means “no where” at the first place. In Latin, “u-” means “not exist” and “topia” means “area or place”. When we talk about an ideal world, we subconsciously agree that there are no such place. Some fields of study such as English literature that needs imagination may mention and discuss about something that does not exist, however the study that has close relativity with reality such as politics doesn’t need such thing. The goal of politics should be finding common ground and reaching reasonable consensus.
Some people claim that as the goal of politics itself can be something we could not grasp. During the journey heading to the goal, we could get some valuable, sometimes more valuable than the goal itself. Aristotle, an ancient Greek philosopher and politician, said a philosopher should rule the untopia. He wrote various and reasonable reasons why the philosopher king is the most efficient system. On the other hand, Marx who a modern German philosopher didn’t like the idea of a king. He said that at utopia every men should work together and divide the products equally. Marx also explained at his book why his politic policy is the best. There are hundreds of respectful philosopher who thought seriously about the politics in utopia like Aristotle and every one of them said different things. If there are hundreds of ways that all of them is the best way, how we are going to choose? Just thinking the progress of choosing it, I could see the everlasting turmoil.
Even we choose the best policy, just following an ideal could be a deleterious poison. The ideal could become before the reality. In Korea, there were controverial issue about whether opening an hearing of nominated law minister candidate. He was definitely turned left, so there were an huge debate between the left party and the right party. Despite of illegal and immoral things that the family of the candidate done, the left party supported him. On the other hand, the right party attack verbally and even insulted him just because he standed at the left side. If we look carefully at the policy that the candidate will do when he become minister of law and the things that his wife and daughter done, we can’t just support or oppose him. The ideal of the party shallowed the eyes of the politicians.
The goal of politics is to decide what kind of policy will be good for everyone, not just suggest that every direction has their own benefits. If we just look and run to “utopia” like an eye-covered race horse, we will see ourself going to no where.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 977, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t, I could see the everlasting turmoil. Even we choose the best policy, just fol...
^^^^
Line 5, column 193, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...ontroverial issue about whether opening an hearing of nominated law minister candi...
^^
Line 5, column 286, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...s definitely turned left, so there were an huge debate between the left party and ...
^^
Line 7, column 251, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...ace horse, we will see ourself going to no where.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, look, may, so, kind of, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 33.0505617978 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 45.0 58.6224719101 77% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 12.9106741573 23% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2234.0 2235.4752809 100% => OK
No of words: 449.0 442.535393258 101% => OK
Chars per words: 4.97550111359 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60321845022 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72079422534 2.79657885939 97% => OK
Unique words: 238.0 215.323595506 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.530066815145 0.4932671777 107% => OK
syllable_count: 697.5 704.065955056 99% => 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: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.5161576484 60.3974514979 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.36 118.986275619 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.96 23.4991977007 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.24 5.21951772744 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 10.2758426966 165% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.182877003598 0.243740707755 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0642062233089 0.0831039109588 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.105694343857 0.0758088955206 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.1037721449 0.150359130593 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0401155409798 0.0667264976115 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 14.1392134831 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.8420337079 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.1743820225 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.31 12.1639044944 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.75 8.38706741573 92% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 100.480337079 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.