In any situation, progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view.
The human mind is a complex personality. Our decision can be viewed from a different perspective by various people. Upon carefully perusing them, they can be proved wrong which can cast a discussion among the decision makers that will, further, result in the fruitful final decision. I agree, with the statement that a progressive idea can be bolstered by the discussion made among individuals.
Last year in New Delhi, a decision was taken by the existing government to prevent air pollution. Odd-Even rules where odd number plate cars will run on Monday, Wednesday, Friday and even-numbered cars on the remaining days. The traffic organisation of Delhi refuted this claimed rule as it would only create a hassle for the daily people going to their work and put pressure on the limited Public transport due to an increase in passengers. Consequently, denizens of the capital city could not able to cope up with this rule and demanded for its abolition which was done within 2 weeks of implementation. Due to the difference between the central and traffic organization, a bad decision was implemented which act as an insurance for the people, as one of the reasons, for not voting the present party in next election. Had the discussion been made among the government organizations then it would have resulted into a stable outcome that could serve as the method to prevent havoc between people and air pollution.
In 2014, the Apple.Inc wanted to go for the dual sim phones which were prevalent around the globe by many mobile companies. The market survey was conducted which concluded that people would support this idea. But the telecom scientist refuted it. According to them, the dual sim creates more Electromagnetic waves which are already harming the people at global stage. Also, as the iPhone radiations are already in an increased value compared to its competitors, it is recommended for Apple not to manufacture dual sim phones. This careful perusing of the primary decision by the company executives exemplify that discussion with contracting views can create fruitful decisions.
In 2010, FIFA association asked Adidas to create the less weighing football then they created the 8 paneled welded football ( one of its kind in that year) that was used in the world cup that year. Upon receiving the reviews from the participating teams and top players, it had come to the knowledge that the manufacturing of this football resulted in uneven trajectory upon kicking. Also, people rejected the new concept of welded panel football. Adidas. Inc discussed the issue with the team players as well as with the research and development department and developed the new football with 16 welded panel which turned out to be a hit product and is in use till now. Hence, discussion and feedback from people saved the new technology in popular sports.
In conclusion, I believe that refuting statement on the applied decision can serve a purpose of revision which can create positive outcomes.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 20, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Inc
...d air pollution. In 2014, the Apple.Inc wanted to go for the dual sim phones wh...
^^^
Line 7, column 77, Rule ID: LESS_MORE_THEN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'than'?
Suggestion: than
...as to create the less weighing football then they created the 8 paneled welded footb...
^^^^
Line 7, column 124, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ey created the 8 paneled welded football one of its kind in that year that was us...
^^
Line 7, column 603, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'panel' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'panels'.
Suggestion: panels
...veloped the new football with 16 welded panel which turned out to be a hit product an...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, hence, if, so, then, well, as to, in conclusion, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.3162921348 168% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 58.6224719101 116% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2510.0 2235.4752809 112% => OK
No of words: 494.0 442.535393258 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08097165992 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71445763274 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78988203824 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 270.0 215.323595506 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.546558704453 0.4932671777 111% => OK
syllable_count: 775.8 704.065955056 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.9228045789 60.3974514979 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.090909091 118.986275619 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4545454545 23.4991977007 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.81818181818 5.21951772744 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.110855286823 0.243740707755 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0350410431792 0.0831039109588 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0448973832584 0.0758088955206 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0576827722113 0.150359130593 38% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0371693364854 0.0667264976115 56% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.1392134831 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.48 12.1639044944 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.11 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 137.0 100.480337079 136% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.