The best test of an argument is its ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint.
We are inundated in a world of a hodgepodge of opinions on various topics. When facing those endless contentions, some may find it reasonable to suggest that the hallmark of the best argument be the capability of its holder to persuade those opponents. This statement, feasible under certain circumstances notwithstanding, cannot be consolidated universally. Often, with time elapsed, it might turn out that the viewpoint once discarded by the majority into oblivion is actually the truth.
When doing scientific research or philosophical debate, we are encouraged to examine the reasoning process, evidence, or even the basic hypothesis of our opponents. In ancient Greece, Socrates had been tenaciously forcing his opponents to re-examine their views through a way called “method of elenchus”: that is, by generating an argumentative cooperative dialogue between two individuals, one can perform reflection on his/her idea as well as the proof. Socrates used this method to debunk many specious arguments fabricated by those “Sophists”, and from then on could the real philosophy develop and flourish in Athens. Similarly, when we look through the history of science, we can discover that the most enduring theories are often the winners in the debate among its contrasting views.
Nevertheless, when considering other empirical areas such as social science and politics, if two individuals differs from their premises on some issues, it is unlikely that they could convince each other, and in this case the best opinion should be examined through actions rather than words. Economists and government officers always debate over some economic policies e.g. raise of tax or issue of currency. Sometimes the suggestion from most eloquent pundit does not work well after implemented by government, since the real economic market is so complicated that any individuals cannot assert that they grip its intricate laws firmly. In this aspect, the famous quip “talk is cheap, show me the result” is not completely unfounded.
It is also worth noting that, although some arguments fail to convince most of its listeners currently, history tells us they enjoyed more longevity than their initially founded antithesis. When Michael Faraday invented his electromagnetic induction devices and urged the British government to invest on it, he was dismissed by the myopic parliament as well as most of the scientists and engineers at that time. It was only decades later, when the desire to find new source of energy went imperative, were researchers reminded of Faradays neglected theories and designs, which became the bedrock of the ensuing second industrial revolution. Eventually, time and down streaming applications, rather than any convincing evidence, saved Faraday’s efforts from oblivion.
By the analysis above, we can conclude that refuting contrasting views cannot always guarantee eternal soundness, especially for subjective topics. Moreover, the most convincing current statements may be discarded in the future, while those with relatively less supporters now could show more proximity to the truth.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 258, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun supporters is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...the future, while those with relatively less supporters now could show more proximit...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, e.g., if, look, may, moreover, nevertheless, second, similarly, so, then, well, while, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 33.0505617978 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 62.0 58.6224719101 106% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2679.0 2235.4752809 120% => OK
No of words: 476.0 442.535393258 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.6281512605 5.05705443957 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67091256922 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10296535666 2.79657885939 111% => OK
Unique words: 298.0 215.323595506 138% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.626050420168 0.4932671777 127% => OK
syllable_count: 832.5 704.065955056 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 10.0 3.10617977528 322% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.36537414 60.3974514979 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 148.833333333 118.986275619 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.4444444444 23.4991977007 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.77777777778 5.21951772744 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => 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: 0.127769226023 0.243740707755 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0325202608451 0.0831039109588 39% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.032307548888 0.0758088955206 43% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0651929133498 0.150359130593 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0209875751491 0.0667264976115 31% => 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: 18.3 14.1392134831 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 48.8420337079 75% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.1743820225 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.67 12.1639044944 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.5 8.38706741573 125% => OK
difficult_words: 168.0 100.480337079 167% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.