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.
Critical criticism is perhaps, more imperative than mere approbation. The given prompt asserts that people who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy tend to be the most critical of it. Research has consistently demonstrated one who accepts criticism in positive way, fares well better than others who don't. In my opinion, I strongly agree with the given assertion and argue that indeed, people deeply committed to the idea/policy have a predilection to be critical of the same, for these reasons.
First, these people have a firm understanding of the idea or the policy. They are on very strong grounds regarding the overall assessment of the idea. They are able to take cognizance of the complexity, importance and implications of the idea. For instance, senior advisors like the Chief Secretary of the state or National Security advisors(NSA) are adept with the lucid expertise of their fields. They play a keen role formulating and implementing key policies. Elected politicians, generally inept, do not go against these advice's. This example illustrates how these people are more critical than the rest, due to sheer expertise and hold on such fields. Thus, since these people know the idea inside out, they tend to be more critical of it.
Furthermore, these people feel the responsibility towards the idea. They are well aware of the implications of proposing and implmenting such policies. They tend to iteratively make suggestions, to make the policy better. Consider a national healtcare policy, for instance, the government may recieve much criticism from the opposition, that is pre-dominantly expected, what matters is criticism from the experts. The government may then revise the guidelines of the policy, enervating the viability of criticism. This illustartes how government perceieves criticism when the experts are critical of it. Moreover, these people are accountable for the policy. Hence, accounatbility makes people more critical of the policy.
Of course, some might argue that people are critical due to their petty personal interests and that there is nothing constructive about the criticism. This might be warranted in some scenarios like politics where regardless of the merits of the policy, opposition engages in criticism of almost any move by the government or some office gimmicks. However, this is limited to only such scenarios. In most of the cases, people involved whole heartedly in the idea/ policy are more critical, just because they want betterment of the idea. Therefore, we must construe criticism from the people committed to the idea in a constructive way and look to improve the efficacy.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 315, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... way, fares well better than others who dont. In my opinion, I strongly agree with t...
^^^^
Line 5, column 214, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ely make suggestions, to make the policy better. Consider a national healtcare po...
^^
Line 8, column 613, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a constructive way" with adverb for "constructive"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...m from the people committed to the idea in a constructive way and look to improve the efficacy.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, hence, however, look, may, moreover, regarding, so, then, therefore, thus, well, for instance, of course, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.4196629213 40% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 58.6224719101 97% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2237.0 2235.4752809 100% => OK
No of words: 422.0 442.535393258 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.3009478673 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53239876712 4.55969084622 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92429831425 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 215.323595506 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.4932671777 101% => OK
syllable_count: 725.4 704.065955056 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 16.0 6.24550561798 256% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 23.0359550562 69% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.4848755316 60.3974514979 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.48 118.986275619 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.88 23.4991977007 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.56 5.21951772744 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.210740964512 0.243740707755 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0625057080492 0.0831039109588 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0636899671632 0.0758088955206 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.143782513133 0.150359130593 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0740334210311 0.0667264976115 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 14.1392134831 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 48.8420337079 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.16 12.1639044944 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 100.480337079 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.2143820225 75% => 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.