Claim: The best test of an argument is its ability to convince someone with opposing viewing.
Reason: Only by being forced to defend an idea against the doubts and contrasting views of others does one really discover the value of that idea.
The writer of the issue claims that the best method in an argumental subject is convincing others with its opponent views. Because opposing ideas merely can reveal all details which are latent in. This assertion and its instance are inadequate to identify all aspects of an issue and the way by utilizing them might be unsound. I can agree with neither the claim nor the reason as I found both of them problematic and other methods should be deemed to recognize the issue.
The first problem with the claim is that only using negative aspects to recognize an argumental issue can increase the pessemism viewing. In this way, the aim is to bold disadvantages, try to advance opponents and ignore all merits which have tremendous impacts. Furthermore, this method raise a considerable number of challenges which have correlations with the main theme and it may alter it to be more complex and obscure. This vagueness have the ability to stray scholars from the initial targets which were designed to discover details though it creates an issue which is self-contradictory with some new questions which are presumably unfathomable. Thus, we should avoid the methods that increase the probability of creating distinguishable issues.
Another snag with the claim is that lumping barely opposing notions together to disclose an argumental topic has the ability to face an obstacle. This difficulty diminish the velocity of the recognition process. Therefore, dullness arises and it declines the propensity to continue and bear the problems which should be addressed to unmask the issue. Moreover, more efforts require to efface the obstacle and it can lead to the cancelation of evaluating and convincing.
As I stated in the introductory paragraph, I cannot accept the reason either. The flaw with the reason is that not only using obligation to defend opponents cannot bolster the circumstances in order to enhance a wealth of that idea but also it may decrease it. For instance, an idea with only its drawbacks which are surrounding it and have no permission for considering its benefits can be seen as a valueless subject and it is not worth to think about it.
In conclusion, while there are several compelling arguments on the claim and its reason, I profoundly believe that considering merely the opponents of an issue and not allowing to deem the supporting ones cannot permit to uncover its values and it is quite difficult to convince others .
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 124, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Because” 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.
...vincing others with its opponent views. Because opposing ideas merely can reveal all de...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 442, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'has'.
Suggestion: has
...ore complex and obscure. This vagueness have the ability to stray scholars from the ...
^^^^
Line 9, column 163, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'diminishes'.
Suggestion: diminishes
...ty to face an obstacle. This difficulty diminish the velocity of the recognition process...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 383, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'effacing'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'require' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: effacing
...e issue. Moreover, more efforts require to efface the obstacle and it can lead to the can...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 178, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'deeming'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'allow' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: deeming
... opponents of an issue and not allowing to deem the supporting ones cannot permit to un...
^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 220, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'uncovering'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'permit' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: uncovering
... deem the supporting ones cannot permit to uncover its values and it is quite difficult to...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 286, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...it is quite difficult to convince others .
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, if, may, moreover, so, therefore, thus, while, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 33.0505617978 112% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 58.6224719101 85% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2069.0 2235.4752809 93% => OK
No of words: 404.0 442.535393258 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12128712871 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48327461151 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86981569047 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 215.323595506 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.522277227723 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 650.7 704.065955056 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.0876621307 60.3974514979 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.705882353 118.986275619 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7647058824 23.4991977007 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.17647058824 5.21951772744 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 7.80617977528 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.334987456685 0.243740707755 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.100317805788 0.0831039109588 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0866494558604 0.0758088955206 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.192488182207 0.150359130593 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0540008233753 0.0667264976115 81% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.1392134831 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.8420337079 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.1639044944 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.35 8.38706741573 111% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 100.480337079 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => 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.