Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carry out the will of the people whom they serve.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
Political leaders representing counties, states, nations, and even international bodies are all entrusted with a weighty task: to govern effectively. While opinion on effective government vary widely, all can agree that officials should promote the best interest of their constituents and strive for peace and prosperity. However, the means to achieve these ends is a constant source of disagreement and political frustration. I have to agree that government officials should rely on their own judgment. The public has the responsibility to elect leaders with sufficient education, a moral compass, and creative negotiation and problem-solving abilities. Once the leaders are elected, the lay-people of the public take a minor role in governance and do not direct daily decisions or regular votes.
First of all, politicians should approach their vocation seriously and work to educate themselves on each decision while remaining close to the community they represent. One purpose for electing full-time representatives and paying them accordingly is to allow them the time to do the work of governance. It is a full-time job to read proposed bills, negotiate with colleagues, and investigate the facts leading to each decision. Politicians absolutely should find opportunities to hear from those they represent through town hall meetings or other experiences in the community. They can then use the feedback they receive to shape their decision making. They should use their judgment to best serve the people they represent and do so honestly and faithfully.
Some may argue that government officials have a duty to carry out the will of the people who elected them. Nevertheless, this is not necessarily possible and may lead to worse decision-making. First of all, we cannot assume all of the voters shared the same opinions. It is common for voters to rally behind a single issue such as abortion or tax cuts. Other times they report voting for the lesser of two evils. This means that they will hold a wide variety of opinions on other issues. If 60% of voters agree that a tax cut is necessary, maybe only 10% would support more money for public transit and 40% support stricter regulation for local business. This hypothetical scenario shows that it is not possible for the government official to carry out the will of his supporters in every circumstance. Additionally, the official has the opportunity to see the larger picture through meetings with colleagues, research on the issue, advice of interns, and access to non-public information. As long as the official is honestly working in the people’s best interest, this means that their decision will be more well-informed than if he simply votes as his voters prefer.
Notice that for this to work, the government official must be faithful to the best interests of his constituents and must do due diligence in learning about the issues to vote with fidelity. If he shows signs of corruption, voters have the responsibility to remove him from office. In our divided world of biased news and high paid lobbyists, it can be difficult to ensure that moral, well-intentioned people are elected to office, yet this is of highest importance. The people should not demand that an official carry out their will in every situation. Instead, they should demand that their leaders vote with a conscience, take time to hear community concerns, and work hard while in office to govern well and not to enrich themselves.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 10, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'argues'.
Suggestion: argues
... honestly and faithfully. Some may argue that government officials have a duty t...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 225, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...-making. First of all, we cannot assume all of the voters shared the same opinions. It is ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 445, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'of the highest'.
Suggestion: of the highest
...ople are elected to office, yet this is of highest importance. The people should not deman...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, first, honestly, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, then, well, while, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.4196629213 169% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 54.0 33.0505617978 163% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 73.0 58.6224719101 125% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 12.9106741573 178% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2929.0 2235.4752809 131% => OK
No of words: 563.0 442.535393258 127% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20248667851 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87110059796 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98118363592 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 287.0 215.323595506 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.509769094139 0.4932671777 103% => OK
syllable_count: 905.4 704.065955056 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 20.2370786517 133% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.1569671175 60.3974514979 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.481481481 118.986275619 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8518518519 23.4991977007 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.92592592593 5.21951772744 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 10.2758426966 156% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => 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: 0.224265411979 0.243740707755 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0688932796355 0.0831039109588 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.073490251554 0.0758088955206 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.144672365722 0.150359130593 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0223200227729 0.0667264976115 33% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.1392134831 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.1639044944 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.92 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 153.0 100.480337079 152% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => 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: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.