“Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carry out the will of the people they serve.”
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
Politics, defined by precedent, preeminent scholars, is an art of distributing public resources, and that government is the one who brings out the magic. Government officials often encounter dilemmas: whether to make their own decision or listen to the crowd. Execute their policies by their own will may boost bureaucracy efficiency, but may face public pressure on the other hand. For me, I tend to propose that they should thoroughly carry out people’s will when making policies.
It is no doubt that in history, administrations rely on their own judgements had proven its benefits. In the 80s of Osaka, Japan, people were enjoying the economic boost after the World War II, and that all they cared about is making money but others. As a consequence, the streets were a totally mess: garbage could been seen everywhere, shops putting out banners in every styles, sizes, colors and positions, which really sabotaged the street view. To tackle this, the government passed a law by increasing fines for littering, and regulating how shops and other commercials should place, and even how to design their banners. Of course, the law irritated the citizens, claiming that this policy intruded their freedom. However, after few years, people found out that this actually makes the streets look more tidy and beautiful, and that the law was eventually supported from people. Today, tourists awed to the clean and fine street views of Japan, and that governments rely on their judgements do has its advantages.
Nevertheless, the example above is just one of the very few, success examples, while most of them in history turned into failures, with some of them almost tore the whole country down. As we know, most of the administrations are elected by the people, and that what they present is actually the will from the audience, therefore disobeying the people’s will is fundamentally a democratic error. In addition, many nations who made judgements themselves eventually become dictators: Taiwan (Republic of China) and South Korea were some of the vivid examples. In the 50s, they both faced civil rivals, which were People’s Republic of China and North Korea respectively. To boost up fundamental constructions and prevent invasions from their rivals, they banned the public to express disagreements. Although it did secure the nation’s security and executed policies with efficient bureaucracies, the leaders all became dictators and eventually posed democratic threats to the public. Nowadays, the governments have altered their stances and follow the voices of their people, and that citizens do not have to worry that their voices are not being heard.
It is not an easy to determine whether government officials should rely on their own judgement or carry out the people’s wills. Although executing policies with their own will may increase efficiency, I see democracy as an inpenetrable value. They should follow people’s wills in order to prevent unauthorized, growing power.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 288, Rule ID: A_RB_NN[1]
Message: You used an adverb ('totally') instead an adjective, or a noun ('mess') instead of another adjective.
...ers. As a consequence, the streets were a totally mess: garbage could been seen everywhere, sh...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 318, Rule ID: PRP_PAST_PART[2]
Message: Did you mean 'have been' or 'be'?
Suggestion: have been; be
...eets were a totally mess: garbage could been seen everywhere, shops putting out bann...
^^^^
Line 5, column 528, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
... Republic of China and South Korea were some of the vivid examples. In the 50s, they both f...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, however, if, look, may, nevertheless, really, so, therefore, while, in addition, no doubt, of course, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 22.0 14.8657303371 148% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 33.0505617978 136% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 57.0 58.6224719101 97% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2527.0 2235.4752809 113% => OK
No of words: 478.0 442.535393258 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28661087866 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67581127817 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82152121215 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 264.0 215.323595506 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.55230125523 0.4932671777 112% => OK
syllable_count: 757.8 704.065955056 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 9.0 1.77640449438 507% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.3089539378 60.3974514979 60% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.333333333 118.986275619 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7619047619 23.4991977007 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.38095238095 5.21951772744 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.242999740594 0.243740707755 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0755028039147 0.0831039109588 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0551126999742 0.0758088955206 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.169656492815 0.150359130593 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0574631812882 0.0667264976115 86% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.1392134831 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.7 12.1639044944 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.12 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 133.0 100.480337079 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => 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: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.