Governments officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carry out the will of the people they serve.
Government officials are elected by the people to serve the people. With that line of thinking, many citizens often feel that officials should be compelled to support policies in line with the voices of the public regardless of the context. I strongly disagree with this line of thinking and is of the opinion that government officials must retain their own judgement instead of blindly following the will of the public. I have two specific reasons for dissenting, which will be further elaborated below.
Firstly, the public tends to be short-sighted and may not have the long-term foresight required to ensure the long-term prosperity of the country. Singapore is one of the best examples where the public has frequently voiced out previously on the budget surplus that has been channelled to the reserves over the years instead of distributing it to the public. This is a very common phenomenon where the citizens strongly advocate for government payout at the expense of a lower reserve as they are of the short term mindset of having money now in their pockets. However, the officials' decision to continue to build up a reserve has paid off in the current unprecedented COVID-19 crisis. With the huge reserves built up over the years, the government is able to provide generous funding to create new jobs and support enterprises through this challenging time. Thus, it is important that officials have their own critical long-term thinking instead of blindly following the popular public opinion to ensure a propitious future outcome.
Secondly, with the advent of social media, the public can be easily swayed by misleading headlines. The US government under President Trump advocated for the use of an untested drug to stave off COVID-19 because the public is advocating for a treatment option and there is a tenuous link that a certain drug worked. As a result, there were unneeded fatalities as the drug proved to be ineffective and even harmful. This example underscores the importance of officials thinking for themselves, instead of supporting the popular opinion of the day. Thus, highlighting that officials should not be blindly following the will of the public.
Some may argue that government officials are ultimately elected by the people to represent and carry out their wishes. As such, they must adhere to the will of the people who voted them into office. However, this line of thinking is flawed. Officials are voted into office to not just represent a single group of people, but the whole nation. There is a need for them to evaluate policies in the context of the well-being of the nation, not just a group of people even if they are the majority.
To conclude, we as citizens vote for government officials who will ensure the future of our country and in turn, our lives will continue to be a prosperous one. That entails allowing our elected officials to do their job with a long-term and objective perspective in mind, even if it means going against the popular public opinion.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 10, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'argues'.
Suggestion: argues
...ing the will of the public. Some may argue that government officials are ultimatel...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, thus, well, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 33.0505617978 106% => OK
Preposition: 78.0 58.6224719101 133% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2516.0 2235.4752809 113% => OK
No of words: 503.0 442.535393258 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00198807157 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73578520332 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70797096133 2.79657885939 97% => OK
Unique words: 231.0 215.323595506 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.459244532803 0.4932671777 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 783.9 704.065955056 111% => 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: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.9637647321 60.3974514979 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.363636364 118.986275619 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8636363636 23.4991977007 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.81818181818 5.21951772744 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.227673924446 0.243740707755 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.076385732121 0.0831039109588 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.076494317623 0.0758088955206 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.140439413933 0.150359130593 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0586702997593 0.0667264976115 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.1392134831 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.02 12.1639044944 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 100.480337079 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.