"Governments are justified in circumventing civil laws when doing so is vital to the protection of national security. "Write an essay in which you take a position on the statement above. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways

The governments who take responsibility for the process of the civil laws legitimately. However, there are many cases in which governments may decide to temporarily ignore some civil constitutions. Follow the statement that it is reasonable when doing so is vital to the protection of national security. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that this cannot be justified at all because all corrupt politicians and governments do similar act against their nation. In urgent cases, we can have more efficient, expedient strategy to solve the problem, other than breaking the law.
On the one hand, sometimes it seems that circumventing laws is the easiest way of facing some problems, but it does not mean the best way. For example, at the juncture of war, many politicians decide to do surreptitious actions to cover what it is going on from enemies. Even they may put pressure on opponents and limit the freedom of speech. They usually argue that this is just a temporary policy and situation demands such a reaction. Still, this cannot be reliable with any rule or principle, because such a policy will just yield to harm to society, instead of protecting it from dangers. For instance, in China, they are going against the law which allows free access information when they prohibit google or facebook to come into their country with the reason that they want to guarantee the national security from the foreign country especially the United States. Ignoring laws can become a habit for officials and this will corrupt a government in the long term. Therefore, there would be no point to assume such a corrupt policy as justified.
On the other hand, the effective solution to any issue is rectitude. The government should abide by the law in any situation unless people or their representatives in parliament allow them to do something that may break the law. But this should be done only by a legitimate procedure. Nobody is above the law so that why no breaking law decision is processed without making sure that it is under the supervision of another authority. My perspective is that when you take into consideration a problem in a democratic plan, it is more likely to find a better solution for that problem then when you try to face it by yourself. More importantly, when a government obeys laws it is immune from the criticism of its bad consequences. I should be hesitant about this claim because a wise person should always do concern about something's outcomes. However, in most cases, conformity to laws will not result in bad consequences, but the contrary is more probable to bring about such outcomes. I want, however, to warn against some really urgent situations in which there is no time for hesitation. Nevertheless, the very exigent demand can justify any action, though I believe such cases are minor and very clear to fathom.
In conclusion, I argue that there is nothing above truth. No government is allowed to go against laws to do something that seems to be worthy without consulting from the citizens in the country. In the case of security, there are many democratic and legitimate ways of resolving problems and therefore, there would be no place for ignoring civil laws for civil welfare.

Average: 5 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, may, nevertheless, really, so, still, then, therefore, for example, for instance, in conclusion, in most cases, on the other hand

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.5258426966 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.4196629213 137% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 11.3162921348 186% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 33.0505617978 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 74.0 58.6224719101 126% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2677.0 2235.4752809 120% => OK
No of words: 543.0 442.535393258 123% => OK
Chars per words: 4.93001841621 5.05705443957 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82725184711 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82856861499 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 265.0 215.323595506 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.48802946593 0.4932671777 99% => OK
syllable_count: 858.6 704.065955056 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.38483146067 228% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.510608321 60.3974514979 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.961538462 118.986275619 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8846153846 23.4991977007 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.65384615385 5.21951772744 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
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: 0.216858587732 0.243740707755 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0599680813261 0.0831039109588 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0616860249373 0.0758088955206 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.146600747362 0.150359130593 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0601981763135 0.0667264976115 90% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.1392134831 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
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: 11.31 12.1639044944 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.26 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 125.0 100.480337079 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => 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: 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.