If a goal is worthy, then any means taken to attain it are justifiable.
The statement asserts that any, and every means for achievement of a goal that is deemed worthwhile, are guaranteed justification. Depending on the possible impacts and nature of the goal, the statement can be valid; however, if the means to attain the goal goes against some important rules in society, the goal itself should be reevaluated of its value, and if the goal is still deemed worthy, people should find other ways to achieve it for the enhancement of the entire society.
To begin with, depending on the essence of the goal, ways to attain the goal can sometimes be justified. If the nature of goal is pure and for the justice, and the goal’s anticipated impacts are conducive to the betterment of a society, then even illicit methodologies can tolerated. In case of Susan B. Antony, a prominent female social activist who fought assiduously for enhancement of women rights, especially women’s suffrage, her illegal act against the government is evaluated as an act of justice nowadays. Anthony voted before the U.S. government passed 19th amendment that bestowed women’s right to vote. She believed that her method, even against the law, is rightful since the goal she had was for the good of numerous people, which enhances their rights as human. People in this day and age, as a result, benefited greatly from her demeanor, and respect her for her illegal action. If the goal is for the higher virtue, its means can surely be justified.
However, it is extremely rare for goals purely for the positive effects to have corrupt means to achieve them. If the means to attain the goal are questionable ethically and morally, in most cases the goal would possess some harm. Also, if the means are against the rules and detrimental, it is possible that the goal is only worthwhile to very few people and have deleterious impacts on numerous people. Take Enron Scandal as an instance. Enron is an American energy company that used to be successful; due to failed deals and projects, the company had to declare bankruptcy. The executives of the firm, nonetheless, refused to do so since they did not want to lose their fame and wealth, thus chose to deceive their customers. Their means to achieve their goal of retaining their fame wealth were corrupt, indeed because the ultimate goal was corrupt. Therefore, when their subterfuge was revealed, the consequence was worse than before. All of it was rife with harm since the goal of the executives was worthwhile exclusive to them and was detrimental for many other people.
All in all, if a goal is purely for the development of a society and achievement of a higher value, even illegal methods can be tolerated and justified to attain the goal. It is, nevertheless, a very unlikely case where goals’ expected benefits outweigh corrupt methodologies. If the means to attain a goal is harmful to many, it is doubtful that the goal would engender positive impacts; merits could be only for very few, which indicates that the goal is only worthwhile for very few and not for the many. Since the latter example is the general case, the given statement is not cogent.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: If the nature of goal is pure and for the justice, and the goal's anticipated impacts are conducive to the betterment of a society, then even illicit methodologies can tolerated.
Description: The fragment can tolerated . is rare
Suggestion: Possible agreement error: Replace tolerated with verb, base: uninflected present, imperative or infinitive
Description: A modal auxillary is not usually followed by a verb, past participle
Suggestion: Refer to can and tolerated
Sentence: In case of Susan B. Antony, a prominent female social activist who fought assiduously for enhancement of women rights, especially women's suffrage, her illegal act against the government is evaluated as an act of justice nowadays.
Description: A noun, plural, common is not usually followed by a noun, plural, common
Suggestion: Refer to women and rights
flaws:
Better always support/against one side. It is difficulty to argue both side well in 30 minutes.
and better to have 5 paragraphs. Try this pattern:
paragraph 1: introduction. Suppose we support side A.
paragraph 2: reason 1 + why reason 1 + example of reason 1 + a small conclusion (like advantages of reason 1 or comparisons if not reason 1).
paragraph 3: reason 2 + why reason 2 + example of reason 2 + a small conclusion (like advantages of reason 2 or comparisons if not reason 2).
paragraph 4: Admittedly, there are some advantages of side B. First, ... Second, .... However, there is no causation/relation.... I still support side A. first,....second...
paragraph 5: conclusion -- reinforce the thesis.
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 533 350
No. of Characters: 2520 1500
No. of Different Words: 232 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.805 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.728 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.554 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 176 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 129 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.227 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.886 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.591 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.326 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.46 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.146 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 718, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
...law, is rightful since the goal she had was for the good of numerous people, which ...
^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'however', 'if', 'nevertheless', 'nonetheless', 'so', 'still', 'then', 'therefore', 'thus', 'while', 'as for', 'as a result', 'in most cases', 'to begin with']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.21568627451 0.240241500013 90% => OK
Verbs: 0.151960784314 0.157235817809 97% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0964052287582 0.0880659088768 109% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0571895424837 0.0497285424764 115% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0424836601307 0.0444667217837 96% => OK
Prepositions: 0.114379084967 0.12292977631 93% => OK
Participles: 0.0277777777778 0.0406280797675 68% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.71444118637 2.79330140395 97% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0343137254902 0.030933414821 111% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.0016655270985 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.109477124183 0.0997080785238 110% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.016339869281 0.0249443105267 66% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0130718954248 0.0148568991511 88% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3152.0 2732.02544248 115% => OK
No of words: 533.0 452.878318584 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.91369606004 6.0361032391 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80487177365 4.58838876751 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.339587242026 0.366273622748 93% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.270168855535 0.280924506359 96% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.178236397749 0.200843997647 89% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.12382739212 0.132149295362 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71444118637 2.79330140395 97% => OK
Unique words: 248.0 219.290929204 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.465290806754 0.48968727796 95% => OK
Word variations: 54.6020609789 55.4138127331 99% => OK
How many sentences: 22.0 20.6194690265 107% => OK
Sentence length: 24.2272727273 23.380412469 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.3577093026 59.4972553346 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 143.272727273 141.124799967 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.2272727273 23.380412469 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.681818181818 0.674092028746 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.94800884956 81% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.21349557522 19% => OK
Readability: 51.2441582807 51.4728631049 100% => OK
Elegance: 1.42207792208 1.64882698954 86% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.256378846223 0.391690518653 65% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.164775062407 0.123202303941 134% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.102686701472 0.077325440228 133% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.523113277536 0.547984918172 95% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.180655260159 0.149214159877 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.112743275859 0.161403998019 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0743119126872 0.0892212321368 83% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.583235649372 0.385218514788 151% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0351955711196 0.0692045440612 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.209703438059 0.275328986314 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0350303359896 0.0653680567796 54% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.4325221239 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.30420353982 113% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.88274336283 41% => OK
Positive topic words: 12.0 7.22455752212 166% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 3.66592920354 82% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.70907079646 37% => OK
Total topic words: 16.0 13.5995575221 118% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.