In any situation, progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view.
What is the meaning of life? This is one of the many questions that no one on the face of this earth can answer. However, we do know that progress is, indeed, a part of life. So, until we figure out the meaning of life, leaving the world a better place than it was before is the least that can be done. The claim suggests that in order to achieve this progress, a discussion among people with contrasting points of view is required and I strongly agree with the statement, for the following reasons.
Good decision making is an integral part of progress. And, in my opinion, a good decision making process should consider all the possible perspective before even starting to formulate the decision. Only then, maximum possible number of advantages and disadvantages can be elicited, thereby leading to a better decision. There is absolutely no way, that one person, or a group of people with similar views, can evaluate a statement or a decision from all points of view. In fact, one can even go as far as to say that the whole idea of democracy is based on this very principle. Before democracy, there was just one monarch responsible for making all the decision, but democracy makes sure that the ruling party is kept in check by the opposition and that every decision made is in accordance with not only the ruling party but also, the opposition which, in most cases, has contrasting points of view.
Of course, one might argue that it is best to not have a discussion involving people from multiple points of view because it speeds up the decision making process. That just leaves the effectiveness or success of the decision made to pure chance, doesn't it? It is definitely possible that the group did not consider all the ramifications of their decision and simply adhered to it because it seemed best according to their dogmatic point of view. For example, consider a situation where a government needs to build a railway network but in order for it to be built a part of a forest needs to be cut. If there is no discussion between the people who support building the railway network and people against it, the government will just build it without considering the repercussions of cutting down trees. Maybe the railway network isn't in immediate demand and by having a fruitful, healthy discussion, one can come to this conclusion.
In conclusion I strongly agree with the statement presented, a discussion involving people with contrasting opinions is in fact needed to make sure there is progress, else, it may seem like progress at the start but eventually lead to the bigger picture that indicates there is none, which could have been avoided by the discussion.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 479, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...cision from all points of view. In fact, one can even go as far as to say that th...
^^
Line 9, column 248, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ss of the decision made to pure chance, doesnt it? It is definitely possible that the ...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 832, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...g down trees. Maybe the railway network isnt in immediate demand and by having a fru...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, so, then, as to, for example, in conclusion, in fact, of course, in most cases, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.5258426966 118% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 33.0505617978 106% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 58.6224719101 119% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2223.0 2235.4752809 99% => OK
No of words: 465.0 442.535393258 105% => OK
Chars per words: 4.78064516129 5.05705443957 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64369019777 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66035500019 2.79657885939 95% => OK
Unique words: 226.0 215.323595506 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.486021505376 0.4932671777 99% => OK
syllable_count: 694.8 704.065955056 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 79.2514555695 60.3974514979 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.5 118.986275619 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.8333333333 23.4991977007 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.77777777778 5.21951772744 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => 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: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.239894475654 0.243740707755 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0682000191185 0.0831039109588 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0877044051557 0.0758088955206 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.148288670611 0.150359130593 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0355962174822 0.0667264976115 53% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.1392134831 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 48.8420337079 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.74 12.1639044944 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.69 8.38706741573 92% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 100.480337079 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.