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 doubt and contrasting views of others does one really discover the value of that idea.
The writer claims the ability to convince someone by not agreeing with an objective because this policy is the best method of examining an argument. I can agree with neither the claim nor the reason as I find both of them problematic.
For one reason, persuading an opponent by disagreement will turn to a word fight. Two sides of an argument, at the start, try to convey their though through an academic and logical way. However, As the argument proceeding, they will seek only to show their point of view is reasonable. Indeed, in this prolonged process, both sides feel frustrated; at this point, they are at thresholds of word fight. Therefore, they take the path of playing with words to convincing each other in which both sides get off track of logical reasoning and try to show their upper hand by illogical questioning and answering and hammering some times each other character. Owing to this reason, I believe convincing individuals by opposing their ideas is not an appropriate method for arguing opinions.
Furthermore, any manifest has its' strict frame. When an opponent tries to detect flaws about the manifest of the other group, surely they will ask that person to adjust his or her expression to their ideas’ limitation. Which leads to repudiate opponent claims. Because according to their philosophy, all detected flaws are sound and defendable. Therefore, the argument will be reached to an infinite rejection and ended without any definite conclusion over the discussed objective. In this regard, it is not the right way of a disagreement. I think this way convincing one’s in a debate is not perfect.
Finally, I am in the claim of that, is better to illuminate fundamental logical defect of ones' ideas rather than opponent an idea by casting doubt and underscoring it. Nobody likes his believe to be questioned and criticized by others. For this reason, they try defend themselves, sometimes by bringing reasons and facts, other time by even, attacking opponent ideas and show that, the foundation of opponents' opinion is not validating and strong enough to question their believes. Thus, both argument side turns to be judgmental and emotional rather be rational; as a result, they go far-fetch and do not explore each other point of view logically. Due to this fact, convincing individual by making them defend their belief against contrasting viewpoint is a weak strategy.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 784, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ppropriate method for arguing opinions. Furthermore, any manifest has its strict...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 225, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Which” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ession to their ideas' limitation. Which leads to repudiate opponent claims. Bec...
^^^^^
Line 11, column 91, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...lluminate fundamental logical defect of ones ideas rather than opponent an idea by c...
^^^^
Line 11, column 473, Rule ID: BELIEVE_BELIEF[1]
Message: Did you mean 'beliefs' (noun) instead of believes (verb)?
Suggestion: beliefs
...ing and strong enough to question their believes. Thus, both argument side turns to be j...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, furthermore, however, if, so, therefore, thus, i think, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.5258426966 72% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.4196629213 40% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.3162921348 53% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 39.0 33.0505617978 118% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 58.6224719101 97% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2026.0 2235.4752809 91% => OK
No of words: 398.0 442.535393258 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.09045226131 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46653527281 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80218235557 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 220.0 215.323595506 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.552763819095 0.4932671777 112% => OK
syllable_count: 617.4 704.065955056 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 57.9241745733 60.3974514979 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.3 118.986275619 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9 23.4991977007 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.8 5.21951772744 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 10.2758426966 29% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 5.13820224719 272% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.316291746478 0.243740707755 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0908568439237 0.0831039109588 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0827921980562 0.0758088955206 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.206426954984 0.150359130593 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0470591020602 0.0667264976115 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.1392134831 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.8420337079 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.1639044944 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.7 8.38706741573 104% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 100.480337079 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.