If a goal is worthy, then any means taken to attain it are justifiable.
In the fast pace of contemporary society, we are mostly exposed to harsh competence and are used to the so-called ‘winner takes it all’ system. That is, unless we meet the expectation by achieving certain goals, the chances are unlikely to come again. Yet, it is still important to notice that the means should not be neglected in terms of achieving tasks. This essay is going to emphasize the consequential value of means and processes by providing several pieces of evidence.
Firstly, even if the process may be slow and tortuous compared to a visible shortcut, bearing in mind the specific ways of achievements and trying not to go beyond moral principles and ethics should be put on priority. This is so because, even in a pragmatic view point, processes may gain its value more than the results that are observed in the long term. Take the example of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries which lost their power in the end. Even though their eventual goals were innovative and utopian, the specific steps in terms of achieving the task were neglected in most circumstances. As a result, the public, even though not visible at first glance, turned their back against the communist government because of the spartan way of disciplining the people. As the people were punished and being scrutinized in their everyday life, the public health went into misery and fell into poverty due to lack of enthusiasm, notwithstanding their full consent with the high ideals and principles. Thus, it can be inferred that democratic and transient means shall not be overlooked when trying to reach the eventual good.
Secondly, even if some argue that every behavior for change has inevitable costs and sacrifices so that these costs can be easily justified, it is important because improper means are likely to be misused in the future. This is a phenomenon that we can observe now in the Korean peninsula. Even though the citizens gained their power through protests in 2016 and achieved the goal to impeach a president who showed extreme corruptcy during her presidency, now there are groups of people who are trying to retain the power and give support to the former president by holding numerous protests and riots. These people have been using the same way of dispelling the personal issues of the opposite side of political power and spreading false news that are unreliable and erroneous. The citizens have now learned that their means for impeachment were unjust and falsified in many cases. As a result, the current political landscape has become as chaotic as it was several years ago, and the political parties have divided into two by dwelling into useless fights and conflicts. It is said that if the means had been fair and proper enough at the former incidents, the current dispute might not have occurred. Thus, in order to maintain a desirable and sustainable society, one has to make sure that the means have been just enough.
In conclusion, even if the goals can be defined as worthy and timely enough to be achieved, it is important not to lose track and keep the process within the boundary of ethics and dignity.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, still, thus, well, as to, in conclusion, as a result, in many cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.5258426966 174% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 25.0 14.8657303371 168% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 33.0505617978 106% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 58.6224719101 111% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 12.9106741573 39% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2612.0 2235.4752809 117% => OK
No of words: 533.0 442.535393258 120% => OK
Chars per words: 4.90056285178 5.05705443957 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80487177365 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59311353914 2.79657885939 93% => OK
Unique words: 279.0 215.323595506 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.523452157598 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 813.6 704.065955056 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 10.0 3.10617977528 322% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.3127649827 60.3974514979 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.6 118.986275619 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.65 23.4991977007 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.21951772744 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0775076346605 0.243740707755 32% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0248361401511 0.0831039109588 30% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0267608769727 0.0758088955206 35% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0554791622794 0.150359130593 37% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0208090054347 0.0667264976115 31% => 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: 15.0 14.1392134831 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 48.8420337079 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.44 12.1639044944 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.87 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 133.0 100.480337079 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => 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.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.