In any situation, progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view.
With the democratic principle and the Internet, today’ society has unprecedented need and opportunity for discussion in all areas. Nevertheless, in the following It shall be argued that discussion is not always needed for progress and can be counter-productive.
Admittedly, discussion can be beneficial and even necessary to achieve significant progress. Due to the limited intellectual capacity of human beings, individuals and groups are rarely able to consider all necessary factors when required to take action. In this sense, discussion with opposing groups can often offer productive criticism to improve upon the measure in question or provide alternatives better suited in lights of disregarded details or in the bigger picture. As such, it has become common practice in the IT industry for leading companies to form consortia in several areas to discuss and compromise on industry standards in order to ensure consistent progress and avoid a flood of proprietary solutions In turn, consumers today often benefit from standardized connectors like USB to charge and connect their phones and other portables, protocols that enable devices to communicate with each other via WiFi and Bluetooth among numerous other industry norms. Therefore, discussion can often facilitate superior and more efficient solutions.
However, in some cases discussion are not necessarily required to achieve progress. Innovation and groundbreaking inventions are good examples of progress that can be produced without discussion of opposing factions. Instead, a single individual can produce progress as in numerous cases of achievements of prominent scientists such at Gutenberg’s printing press, the discovery of penicillin or a plethora of other pioneering and ingenious achievements in history. Likewise, the Pythagorean Theorem is a fundamental concept in geometry and a significant and genuine progress made within the field of math, the theorem itself did not result by discussion with opposing viewpoints. In other words, the theorem was a genuine work of one individual’s great mind. Accordingly, discussion is not always necessary and thus disagreement to the claim is justified under certain cases.
Notwithstanding the fact that strong arguments can be made in favor but also against the stated claim, a disagreeing stance seems more favorable considering the potential for loss of productivity inherent to debates. In many cases, discussions revolve around different opinions and uncertain aspects which cannot be clearly determined in their probability. As a result, debates can perpetuate indefinitely and not come to a conclusive outcome. In other words, debates can stall progress. This is especially significant in situations where time is critical and decisions have to be made in due time and can become even more problematic if it is believed that debate is claimed to be a necessary procedure in any case. Filibusters can be taken as a case in point for this line of thought. With a lack of a time limit for debates, the parliamentary procedure to prevent measures by dragging out speeches, filibusters have been employed several times in different countries to varying success. One of the more prominent cases in history was US senator Strom Thurmond who spoke more than 24 hours nonstop against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. In light of this potential to be inconclusive or even counterproductive, it is plausible to disagree that discussion is always required in any case.
In sum, although it seems like discussion can often be beneficial and even necessary, it is also apparent that this is not always the case and thus disagreement with the given statement reasonable.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 518, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'IT'?
Suggestion: the; IT
... such, it has become common practice in the IT industry for leading companies to form ...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 18, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'cases'' or 'case's'?
Suggestion: cases'; case's
...cient solutions. However, in some cases discussion are not necessarily required...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, but, however, if, likewise, nevertheless, so, therefore, thus, as to, as a result, in any case, in many cases, in other words, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.5258426966 149% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 27.0 14.8657303371 182% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 33.0505617978 70% => OK
Preposition: 88.0 58.6224719101 150% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 12.9106741573 39% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3153.0 2235.4752809 141% => OK
No of words: 571.0 442.535393258 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.52189141856 5.05705443957 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.88831323574 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.22756669885 2.79657885939 115% => OK
Unique words: 300.0 215.323595506 139% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.525394045534 0.4932671777 107% => OK
syllable_count: 1001.7 704.065955056 142% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.38483146067 228% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 92.1439040568 60.3974514979 153% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.086956522 118.986275619 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.8260869565 23.4991977007 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.91304347826 5.21951772744 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 10.2758426966 175% => 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: 0.165346270905 0.243740707755 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0538741678104 0.0831039109588 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0414556444671 0.0758088955206 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0891726973181 0.150359130593 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0321177473648 0.0667264976115 48% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.0 14.1392134831 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.2 48.8420337079 62% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.1743820225 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.03 12.1639044944 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.58 8.38706741573 114% => OK
difficult_words: 172.0 100.480337079 171% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.8971910112 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => 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.