People who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are also the most critical of it.
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.
In recent years, there has been a heated discussion on whether zealous followers of an idea or policy will be the most critical of it or not. Some people agree with the argument since deep commitments are more likely to induce critiques. While others disagree with the claim and suggest that those people would be guardians of the idea or policy they support. This essay is going to argue that, to a large extent, people who are most deeply committed to an idea or policy are not likely to be critical of it, because those people are more inclined to improve the ideas instead of criticise them, and their minds would be constrained by certain ways of thinking and thus cannot realise the flaws within those ideas and policies.
Admittedly, there do not exist ideas or policies as unimpeachable. Each idea has its pros and cons, and each policy must benefit a group of people at a cost of the utility of other groups. Therefore, zealous followers of ideas and policies are more likely to notice the downsides of them because they spend more time thinking about them. Consequently, they may be more critical to those ideas and policies.
However, it requires exceptional impartialness to be critical of the ideas and policies that people are deeply committed to. A far more possible response, when facing imperfections of ideas, is trying to improve and generalise it. For example, most of the economists acknowledge that current economic models are not a reflection of the human society. But instead of criticising and abolishing the models, economists keep complicating them, attempting to incorporate more aspects to make them more realistic. Therefore, it can be observed from the reaction of economists that antagonists of certain ideas are more likely to make every effort to improve and guard the theories they believe before criticise them.
Furthermore, a deeper reason, making people unable to criticise the ideas they are committed to, is that the fundamental assumptions lurking underneath the ideas are often being accepted unconsciously. In this case, the more people believe in that theory, the harder for them to realise the errors in that fundamental assumption. An example can be Newton’s motion theory, suggesting that the weight of everything is stable. Most people accept that assumption unwittingly, and thus they would never find out the flaw of Newton’s theory, no matter how much time them devoted to it.
In conclusion, this essay has argued that people deeply committed to an idea or a policy are less likely to be critical of it. Even though thinking of a certain idea for a longer period appears to
make it easier to find out the flaw within its logic, that does not necessarily lead to critiques. Because firstly, people are more intended to improve the ideas and policies before criticising them. And secondly, if accepting the fundamental assumptions unwittingly, it is even harder for them to suspect the theory. Further discussions can be conducted on statistical investigations of how many critics were initially zealous supporters of certain ideas and policies.
- Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the 16
- Write a response in which you discuss which view aligns more closely with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented. Some people belie 16
- The author is primarily concerned with 16
- A recently issued twenty-year study on headaches suffered by the residents of Mentia investigated the possible therapeutic effect of consuming salicylates. Salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin, a medicine used to treat headaches. 42
- Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based. Claim: the best way to understand the character of a society is to examine the character of the men and women that 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 11, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
...n idea for a longer period appears to make it easier to find out the flaw within i...
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, while, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.5258426966 154% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 33.0505617978 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 71.0 58.6224719101 121% => 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: 2607.0 2235.4752809 117% => OK
No of words: 511.0 442.535393258 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10176125245 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75450408675 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82091744362 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 227.0 215.323595506 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.444227005871 0.4932671777 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 839.7 704.065955056 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.4613290794 60.3974514979 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.5 118.986275619 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.2272727273 23.4991977007 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.27272727273 5.21951772744 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
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: 0.214020015 0.243740707755 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.078527771713 0.0831039109588 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0545763802679 0.0758088955206 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.136953261602 0.150359130593 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0587204160172 0.0667264976115 88% => OK
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.1392134831 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.8420337079 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.6 12.1639044944 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 100.480337079 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 11.8971910112 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => 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.