The effectiveness of a country's leaders is best measured by examining the well-being of that country's citizens.
Leaders of a country play an important and sometimes indelible role. They represent the face of the nation, govern and protect its people, and improve its standards. However, while it is certain that competent leaders should unquestionably ensure the well-being of a country's citizens, it would not be just to rate a leader's effectiveness solely based on the citizens' well-being.
Although it is true the these two factors sometimes have a positive correlation, we cannot infer one from the other because they are metrics of different qualities. Namely, the effectiveness of a country's leaders should be a relative measure while the well-being of a country's citizens is an absolute measure. This is because in order to measure competence in leadership abilities, we need to examine many factors at hand specific to a country, including its availability of resources, fincial situation, and its relationship with other countries. In other words, we can only judge a leader's potential through the ways they manage what is presented to them. On the other hand, measuring the well-being of citizens is objective and there should be no disagreement about the qualification under any context because the well-being of citizens can be directly placed on a spectrum without doubts based on different statstics, including GDP, literacy rate, life expectancy, infant mortality rate, and so on.
We will inevitably run into problems when we attempt to discover a correlation between a relative measure, the effectiveness of leaders, with an absolute one, the well-being of citizens. To put this into perspective, consider a very wealthy nation with abundant natural resources to sustain itself, and have no worries about wars, poverty, and hunger. In such a nation, the leader would have to do little to ensure a certain standard of living for the citizens because the citizens are already enjoying a comfortable life as it stands. In a sense, the leader of this nation would not need to possess a wide range of leadership capabilities under his belt to preserve an already prosperous nation. Now, consider the alternative. Suppose there is an impecunious nation, under perennial conflicts with neighboring countries, and barely enough resources for its population. The leader of this poorer country can be as capable and powerful as they can be, but the well-being of the citizens would never reach a level congruent to that of the citizens in the wealthier nation previously mentioned. Evidently, we can see that comparing the two leaders from two drastically different countries can be problematic because the two are not on the same playing ground. Thus, it would be misleading to infer their leadership abilities based on the two countries' standards of well-being.
Ultimately, leaders of a nation should strive to achieve better living for its citizens, but there is only so much they can do based on the country's current resources and situations. Consequently, before we try to find a direct relationship between the well-being of a country's citizens and the effectiveness of the country's leaders, we need to first recognize that leadership capabilities can only be measured relatively.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 318, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'leaders'' or 'leader's'?
Suggestion: leaders'; leader's
...itizens, it would not be just to rate a leaders effectiveness solely based on the citiz...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, however, if, so, thus, well, while, in other words, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.5258426966 149% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.4196629213 177% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 11.3162921348 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 37.0 33.0505617978 112% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 58.6224719101 121% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2679.0 2235.4752809 120% => OK
No of words: 509.0 442.535393258 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26326129666 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74984508646 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04608010215 2.79657885939 109% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 215.323595506 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.457760314342 0.4932671777 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 844.2 704.065955056 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 8.0 1.77640449438 450% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.1084356212 60.3974514979 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.0 118.986275619 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.7894736842 23.4991977007 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.63157894737 5.21951772744 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.305923500343 0.243740707755 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.110174072359 0.0831039109588 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.112949578779 0.0758088955206 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.241773503826 0.150359130593 161% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0426361342198 0.0667264976115 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 14.1392134831 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 48.8420337079 75% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.1743820225 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.1639044944 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.38706741573 102% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 100.480337079 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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: 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.