The best test of an argument is its ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint.
Many would say that the argument's quality is being diagnosed by whether a person is able to convert the other's opposing perspective over an issue and to convince them. The reason behind this is stated as in the case of one's idea being threatened by others, that person is willing to defend more and become more obstinate with his or her perpective. Therefore, at this time of the period, when a person is able to convert the counterpart's idea, that person could be said to have a knack for giving apposite argument. However, the following essay will argue that it is plausible to disagree with the general statement.
Admittingly, obdurated ideas are hardly convertable and impressionable. In our democratic world, there is a voting system and this system allows the candidates to propound their perspective over the community they are willing to control. Those candidates aiming for being chosen as a leader campaigns and advertises oneself consistently, trying to convince the citizens with other points of view. The winner will be the one who gets the most votes. This action could imply that the certain candidate has a good strength in giving arguments when there is a controversial conversation going on within the people. In general, we could acknowledge that the candidate with the most votes is deserved to be the leader because of the lofty argument that he or she gave toward the public.
However, frankly, we have to admit that we are living in a corrupt world. We see leaders of a certain society being elected in an illegal way. The candidate could have bribed the members of the society for consecutive years and nullified their grudges toward the opposite viewpoint of their origin perspective. Following this process, the leaders are not fully warranted to be a good convincer, rather it was just a power of perquisites that he or she suggested to the society. For example, in other case rather than election, federal legislators are often bribed by the conglomerates to cover their past flawed activisms, willing to evade the reproach or even the boycott. Then, the federal legislators legislate a law that acts positively toward the conglomerate. Thus, we can see easily that federal legislators who should be the one who is most objective, giving strong argument over the society's rule, are often on their own initiatives nulls the counterpart.
Moreover, the result of how the society rallies the opinion could be based on the personal characteristic of the representative on the one side and the other. When the person who is trying to convert a society's ambient toward one's perspective is personally more aggressive, harsh, and intimidating compared to the counterpart, the other side of the viewpoint could be easily intimidated and give up their argument because that side's representative is a very introvert.
In summary, I believe that although a degree of how good the argument is could be measured by convincing the counterpart, there are more other reasons that undermines the statement. The argument could be held not because of one's arguing skills but by the other peripheral reasons, such as being affected by financial perquisites, or depending on the personalities of the members in the argument.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: The reason behind this is stated as in the case of one's idea being threatened by others, that person is willing to defend more and become more obstinate with his or her perpective.
Error: perpective Suggestion: perspective
Sentence: Admittingly, obdurated ideas are hardly convertable and impressionable.
Error: convertable Suggestion: convertible
Error: obdurated Suggestion: obviated
flaws:
The topic is not so closely related to voting system or leaders like that in the second and third paragraph.
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 534 350
No. of Characters: 2654 1500
No. of Different Words: 247 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.807 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.97 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.824 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 195 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 144 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 97 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 72 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.429 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.515 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.476 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.29 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.511 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.129 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 220, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...behind this is stated as in the case of ones idea being threatened by others, that ...
^^^^
Line 1, column 262, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...es idea being threatened by others, that person is willing to defend more and bec...
^^
Line 1, column 427, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'counterparts'' or 'counterpart's'?
Suggestion: counterparts'; counterpart's
...d, when a person is able to convert the counterparts idea, that person could be said to have...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 125, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in an illegal way" with adverb for "illegal"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...ders of a certain society being elected in an illegal way. The candidate could have bribed the me...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 227, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...ng to convert a societys ambient toward ones perspective is personally more aggressi...
^^^^
Line 9, column 71, Rule ID: IS_SHOULD[1]
Message: Did you mean 'it'?
Suggestion: it
...hough a degree of how good the argument is could be measured by convincing the cou...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'frankly', 'however', 'if', 'moreover', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'thus', 'for example', 'in general', 'in summary', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.193825042882 0.240241500013 81% => OK
Verbs: 0.181818181818 0.157235817809 116% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0891938250429 0.0880659088768 101% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0480274442539 0.0497285424764 97% => OK
Pronouns: 0.041166380789 0.0444667217837 93% => OK
Prepositions: 0.121783876501 0.12292977631 99% => OK
Participles: 0.0634648370497 0.0406280797675 156% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.9103075723 2.79330140395 104% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0291595197256 0.030933414821 94% => OK
Particles: 0.00171526586621 0.0016655270985 103% => OK
Determiners: 0.135506003431 0.0997080785238 136% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0222984562607 0.0249443105267 89% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0188679245283 0.0148568991511 127% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3245.0 2732.02544248 119% => OK
No of words: 534.0 452.878318584 118% => OK
Chars per words: 6.07677902622 6.0361032391 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80712388197 4.58838876751 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.37265917603 0.366273622748 102% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.275280898876 0.280924506359 98% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.202247191011 0.200843997647 101% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.138576779026 0.132149295362 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9103075723 2.79330140395 104% => OK
Unique words: 250.0 219.290929204 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.468164794007 0.48968727796 96% => OK
Word variations: 55.0525133235 55.4138127331 99% => OK
How many sentences: 21.0 20.6194690265 102% => OK
Sentence length: 25.4285714286 23.380412469 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.5797129256 59.4972553346 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 154.523809524 141.124799967 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.4285714286 23.380412469 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.619047619048 0.674092028746 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.21349557522 115% => OK
Readability: 52.9566613162 51.4728631049 103% => OK
Elegance: 1.39873417722 1.64882698954 85% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.31247516049 0.391690518653 80% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.14509235518 0.123202303941 118% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0763271640669 0.077325440228 99% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.582866969876 0.547984918172 106% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.187092910454 0.149214159877 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.133138820727 0.161403998019 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0596912926178 0.0892212321368 67% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.550871439816 0.385218514788 143% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0266051855334 0.0692045440612 38% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.229853073806 0.275328986314 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0400697825659 0.0653680567796 61% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.4325221239 77% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.30420353982 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88274336283 61% => OK
Positive topic words: 7.0 7.22455752212 97% => OK
Negative topic words: 8.0 3.66592920354 218% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.70907079646 74% => OK
Total topic words: 17.0 13.5995575221 125% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.