Claim: The emergence of the online "blogosphere" has significantly weakened the quality of political discourse in the United States.Reason: When anyone can publish political opinions easily, standards for covering news and political topics will inevitably
Globally, technology has brought ease to us, viz-a-viz ways of doing things generally, including having discussions on the go. Discussions could be held via different means and manner; convenience is the watch word here. Quality of a discussion can not in anyway be reduced or weakened if one chooses the online "blogoshere" rather than the traditional way of doing things. If the quality would be affected by blogging, then it would also be affected by the traditional means.
The world evolves and so do everything associated with it. We can not stick to old ways of doing things when easier and more effective ways exist. Political discussions are dynamic and quite an interesting discussions that almost never has an end, thus, for those involved in it, one could only imagine how hungry they are to always make their opinion heard at every point in time. So, the advent of blogging which makes it easier would deffinately be used by these kind of individuals.
Adding to the introductory part of this essay, just like we have poorly written blog articles, so do we have poorly articulated views in the traditional means of political discussion. At every point, interested listeners need to filter what they hear or see on all media. Not in anyway is the traditional means more quality assured than the more trending and convenient blogging path.
Standards for covering news and political topics should not decline because things have evolved, they should rather be adapted to what is currently obtainable in the industry. It should not be a difficult task to set new standards that regulates blogging and all other associated media. Doing this will ensure quality is assured and we need not worry about if or why quality is questioned in the "blogoshere".
Finally, we should be awaken to the fact that newer generations will emerge with more innovative ways of doing things. While the appropriate agencies continue to check and set new standards, this will help maintain quality rather than threaten it.
The argument is flawed for numerous reasons. Primarily, the argument generally fails to establish substantially why students are not partaking in voluntary services in recent year. This renders the conclusion that voluntary services are good for students and thus should be made compulsory to an extend invalid. Perhaps, the students have a different perspective to this which could be valid.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-11 | YASSINETURKI | 50 | view |
| 2023-07-04 | Technoblade | 66 | view |
| 2022-12-18 | p_keerthika | 50 | view |
| 2022-07-24 | afroza2 | 83 | view |
| 2022-07-24 | afroza2 | 83 | view |
- Several charitable organizations in Pleasantville provide opportunities for teenagers to engage in community service These organizations have a great need for volunteers but in recent years the number of teenage volunteers has significantly declined The P 70
- Claim The emergence of the online blogosphere has significantly weakened the quality of political discourse in the United States Reason When anyone can publish political opinions easily standards for covering news and political topics will inevitably 50
- In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports swimming boating and fishing among their favorite recreational activities The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits however and the city park department devotes little of i 83
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 246, Rule ID: IN_ANYWAY[1]
Message: Did you mean 'in any way'?
Suggestion: in any way
...rd here Quality of a discussion can not in anyway be reduced or weakened if one chooses t...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 205, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'discussion'?
Suggestion: discussion
...ns are dynamic and quite an interesting discussions that almost never has an end thus for t...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 454, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this kind' or 'these kinds'?
Suggestion: this kind; these kinds
... it easier would deffinately be used by these kind of individuals Adding to the introdu...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 272, Rule ID: IN_ANYWAY[1]
Message: Did you mean 'in any way'?
Suggestion: in any way
... what they hear or see on all media Not in anyway is the traditional means more quality a...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
...questioned in the aposblogoshereapos Finally we should be awaken to the fact that ne...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 22, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'awakened'?
Suggestion: awakened
...sblogoshereapos Finally we should be awaken to the fact that newer generations will...
^^^^^^
Line 11, column 291, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...s and thus should be made compulsory to an extend invalid Perhaps the students have a dif...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, anyway, finally, if, so, then, thus, while, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.4196629213 145% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 33.0505617978 82% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 58.6224719101 70% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 12.9106741573 23% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2000.0 2235.4752809 89% => OK
No of words: 395.0 442.535393258 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.06329113924 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45809453852 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82079852919 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 215.323595506 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.503797468354 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 632.7 704.065955056 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 6.24550561798 0% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.38483146067 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 1.0 20.2370786517 5% => 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: 395.0 23.0359550562 1715% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 0.0 60.3974514979 0% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 2000.0 118.986275619 1681% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 395.0 23.4991977007 1681% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 57.0 5.21951772744 1092% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 7.80617977528 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 10.2758426966 10% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 5.13820224719 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.83258426966 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.142608842378 0.243740707755 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.142608842378 0.0831039109588 172% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0758088955206 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0767001671726 0.150359130593 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0435802671024 0.0667264976115 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 199.9 14.1392134831 1414% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: -329.45 48.8420337079 -675% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 0.0 7.92365168539 0% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 157.3 12.1743820225 1292% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 13.55 12.1639044944 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 26.91 8.38706741573 321% => Dale chall readability score is high.
difficult_words: 92.0 100.480337079 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 58.0 11.8971910112 488% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 160.0 11.2143820225 1427% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 27.0 11.7820224719 229% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.