The writer of the issue claims that an argument is being tested by its ability to convince the opposing views. Then the writer reasons that only by defending an idea against contrasts does one really understand how valuable the idea is. In what follows, I will first discuss my response to the claim and then explain what I think of the reason on which the claim is based.
I fundamentally do not agree with the idea that a distinct argument is one in which no one has a contrasting viewpoint or if anybody has, he/she should be forcedly convinced, so why should we call it an argument?! The primary reason why I disagree with the claim is that we live in a world full of paradoxes. Someone prefers white, on the contrary, the other prefers black. We cannot judge them logically as everyone has his/her own unique taste and also beliefs. More importantly, if we are going to ask them their reasons for their choices, they are going to convince us in accordance with their logic. To clarify this point, the one who prefers white cloths would say that color gives him such a sense of purity and confidence apart from the one who prefers black and feel powerful and unique when wears black. Practically speaking, these are non-uniform attitudes which make our world a better place to live on.
The prevailing view seems to be unacceptable in the case of innovating. If all the listeners to an argument consequently accept the idea unconditionally, then the existing broad diversity of knowledge and skills nowadays wouldn’t be available. The fact is that we cannot generalize one condition to all. I admit that as an argument is more near to the truth, the supporter of that view can convince the debaters more easily. But, there is not anything absolute in this world and every issue can be judged at least bilaterally. The point is that, we should respect to all the debates being announced by multi-attitude people. This point is aptly illustrated by inventing solar systems in virtue of accepting fossil fuels are exhaustible. In this case, if the one who has invented an instrument working only by gasoline sooner or later will understand the application will be inapplicable hence the need of today’s modern life is saving sources. At last an inventor accepting the weakness of his trial and struggles realistically will invent his ideas in a more virtual and practical way leading to experience an enormous success.
Otherwise, as far as the reason is concerned my opinion does not align with the writers’. The power of force is not as much as it seems to be. Every issue having a virtual characteristic will be accepted in spite of all opponents it may have and contrastingly, an argument can have so many opponents in spite of so many advocacies.
To put it in a nutshell, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Different situation meet different decisions; moreover, those kinds of wise decisions considering all the criteria in which they may have influences on the issue will show the most consensus. Differentials play an important role in research and development so, they should not be unified but also they should be comprehended by those keen individuals juxtaposing the differences and make the right and appropriate results among all contrasts.
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'consequently', 'first', 'hence', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'really', 'so', 'then', 'apart from', 'at least', 'i think', 'in spite of', 'on the contrary']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.205169628433 0.240241500013 85% => OK
Verbs: 0.172859450727 0.157235817809 110% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0710823909532 0.0880659088768 81% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0710823909532 0.0497285424764 143% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0516962843296 0.0444667217837 116% => OK
Prepositions: 0.108239095315 0.12292977631 88% => OK
Participles: 0.0468497576737 0.0406280797675 115% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.87830555312 2.79330140395 103% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0226171243942 0.030933414821 73% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.0016655270985 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.117932148627 0.0997080785238 118% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0306946688207 0.0249443105267 123% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0210016155089 0.0148568991511 141% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3281.0 2732.02544248 120% => OK
No of words: 560.0 452.878318584 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.85892857143 6.0361032391 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.8645985582 4.58838876751 106% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.316071428571 0.366273622748 86% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.246428571429 0.280924506359 88% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.194642857143 0.200843997647 97% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.133928571429 0.132149295362 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87830555312 2.79330140395 103% => OK
Unique words: 290.0 219.290929204 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.517857142857 0.48968727796 106% => OK
Word variations: 63.9619357135 55.4138127331 115% => OK
How many sentences: 25.0 20.6194690265 121% => OK
Sentence length: 22.4 23.380412469 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.6850572416 59.4972553346 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.24 141.124799967 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4 23.380412469 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.64 0.674092028746 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.21349557522 0% => OK
Readability: 47.0428571429 51.4728631049 91% => OK
Elegance: 1.21857923497 1.64882698954 74% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.511099704196 0.391690518653 130% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0904586614207 0.123202303941 73% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.069077989991 0.077325440228 89% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.496552121978 0.547984918172 91% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.136658093328 0.149214159877 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.190230743782 0.161403998019 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.111105724655 0.0892212321368 125% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.36937722242 0.385218514788 96% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0428448543611 0.0692045440612 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.351825690873 0.275328986314 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.123703771686 0.0653680567796 189% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.4325221239 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.30420353982 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.88274336283 184% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 8.0 7.22455752212 111% => OK
Negative topic words: 2.0 3.66592920354 55% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.70907079646 148% => OK
Total topic words: 14.0 13.5995575221 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.