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 ability of convincing someone by not being agree 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 side of an argument, at the start try to convey their though through an academic and logical way. But, As the argument proceeding, they will try only 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 path of playing with words to convincing each other in which both sides get off track of logical reasoning and try 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 with their ideas is not an appropriate method for arguing opinions.
Furthermore, any manifest has its’ own 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 good and defendable. Therefore, argument will be reach to an infinite rejection and ended without any clear conclusion over discussed objective. In this regard it is not a good way of disagreement. I think this way convincing one’s in a debate is not perfect.
Finally, I am in claim of that, is better to illuminate logical basic defect of ones’ ideas rather than opponent an idea by casting doubt and under scoring it. Thinking more, nobody likes his believe to be questioned and criticized by others. For this reason, they try just defend, sometimes by bringing reasons and facts, other time by even, attacking opponent ideas and show that, foundation of opponents’ idea is not validating and strong enough to question their believes. Thus, both argument side turn 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 believe against contrasting viewpoint is a weak strategy.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 772, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ppropriate method for arguing opinions. Furthermore, any manifest has its' ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 59, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: When
...anifest has its' own strict frame. when an opponent tries to detect flaws about...
^^^^
Line 7, column 235, 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 478, 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 turn to be ju...
^^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 694, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... Due to this fact, convincing individual by making them defend their believe agai...
^^
Line 11, column 724, Rule ID: BELIEVE_BELIEF[1]
Message: Did you mean 'belief' (noun) instead of believe (verb)?
Suggestion: belief
...individual by making them defend their believe against contrasting viewpoint is a weak...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, furthermore, if, so, therefore, thus, i think, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => 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: 38.0 33.0505617978 115% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 58.6224719101 97% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2013.0 2235.4752809 90% => OK
No of words: 395.0 442.535393258 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.09620253165 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45809453852 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80189237217 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 215.323595506 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.551898734177 0.4932671777 112% => OK
syllable_count: 612.0 704.065955056 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => 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: 55.6106779315 60.3974514979 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.65 118.986275619 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.75 23.4991977007 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.6 5.21951772744 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.2758426966 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 5.13820224719 253% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.350564175816 0.243740707755 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.100406404585 0.0831039109588 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0869404719127 0.0758088955206 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.2289602083 0.150359130593 152% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0637517764326 0.0667264976115 96% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.1392134831 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.8420337079 124% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.1743820225 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 12.1639044944 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.5 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 100.480337079 98% => 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: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.