Claim: The best test of an argument is its ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint
Reason: Only by being forced to defend an idea against the doubts and contrasting view of other does one really discover the value of that idea
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
What extends of a veracious statement apply? Is it represent the majority citizen? What the weakness it holds? There is a raft of questions to measure an argument and most of it provided by the opposite party. They understand the strength, already apply the contradictory solution, and have extensive knowledge of another side hence their decision to believe the contradict statement. Although there is a certain prerequisite qualification for the involved party to make the discussion meaningful and advantageous such are both sides is competent, credible, and logical person, I agree with the statement provided.
The process of convincing the opposite side through debate or discussion is similar to the justification of scientific inventions. The researcher provides a reliable data to back their claim, gives an explanation to other people whose challenge the idea and argues to eliminate doubt. Even though the process might differ significantly with our quotidian discussion, as the former usually needs year’s long, arduous, and expensive experiment thus more objective, but the rule still applies. Most of our arguments shape by our experience, educational background and job thus there is a significant degree of subjectivity. Our argument may inchoate and our evidence may defective, the discussion will reveal the problem. In the end, through tedious argument, exchanging doubt and juxtaposition all view, we may prove to be correct, find another facet from the argument or even wrong, otherwise, it gives us the value of our idea.
The advantage of debate and exchanging argument from opposite site has been proved advantageous by preceded generation. It applies at our house of representatives, which is usually an amalgam of a different faction. They debase, support, or even confound each other to make an important decision for the whole nation. The opposing view replicate the reality of a real world where there is one side who agree or disagree with one decision hence give the project of what kind of reaction provoked and mitigation plan needed. For example, in Indonesia, the universal health coverage supported by half of the parliament claimed that the rule would improve health status and prevent maternal death. The opposite side refuted the idea because the country simply not have the budget for it. Both of the reason relatable and justifiable, but when the former side won, the government planned a way to allocate sufficient fund for the program beforehand.
However, the expertness of both side needs to be taken seriously in this process. It proved detrimental or superfluous to try to convince someone who has not enough capability or information. All above-stated reason applicable only to two mutual rational, logic and aboveboard people. For instance, the heliocentric theory had been censured by the opposite view, even consider the evils work, since the opposite view is a religious figure, not a researcher or scholar. The lack of information makes the discussion not fruitful and only cause a deleterious effect, in this example the condemnation of the supportive side.
All things considered, I believe the soundness of argument can be reached by eliminating the doubt and apprehension of opposite party through educated discussion and logical debate. Although certain circumstance may apply, the process has been part of our advancement of science and knowledge for decades.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 360, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...er side hence their decision to believe the contradict statement. Although there is a certain ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, hence, however, if, may, so, still, thus, for example, for instance, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 27.0 14.8657303371 182% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 33.0505617978 79% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 58.6224719101 113% => OK
Nominalization: 30.0 12.9106741573 232% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2900.0 2235.4752809 130% => OK
No of words: 538.0 442.535393258 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.39033457249 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81610080973 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0097362313 2.79657885939 108% => OK
Unique words: 292.0 215.323595506 136% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.542750929368 0.4932671777 110% => OK
syllable_count: 924.3 704.065955056 131% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 12.0 4.99550561798 240% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.9017844497 60.3974514979 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.538461538 118.986275619 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6923076923 23.4991977007 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.11538461538 5.21951772744 60% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.174730548436 0.243740707755 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0425997246572 0.0831039109588 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0440861427808 0.0758088955206 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0882967525225 0.150359130593 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0393989536381 0.0667264976115 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.1392134831 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.8420337079 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.98 12.1639044944 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.47 8.38706741573 113% => OK
difficult_words: 165.0 100.480337079 164% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => 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.