People who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are the most critical of it.
In an ideal world, people who develop an idea or policy should also be the idea's finest critiques. But, as things generally are in the real world, the reality is much different. This notion, while may seem acceptable to a credulous audience, if studied carefully may prove to be incorrect. There are several aspects revolving around this statement that can be analysed to show this.
To begin with, the fundamental nature of human as a mammal prevents it from being too critical of anything he or she has developed, nurtured and evolved. Most parents see their children with a blurred lens - they are often unable to find major character flaws or inepitude in their children which may be plainly visible to any outside observer. Often, similar is the case with scientists with their theories. Case in point is the fiery debate on the atomic model that took place in the late 19th century. Several distinguished nobel prize winning scientists, including Niels Bohr, Rutherford, and Thomson, lead it with their own model of the atom (the smallest unit of our physical world). So devoted and intransigent were they in backing their individual theories, that even with contrary evidence disproving their ideas, they did not budge. This lead to a blot on an otherwise stellar career of these scientists. Examples like this can be found in any field, proving that the human psyche precludes unbiased analysis of ideas and policies which originate from one's own mind.
Further, the opposite, more often than not is found true. People make excellent critiques of theories which attack their own. This is solely a self-preserving behaviour, in which protecting one's own ideas leads to a critical analysis of anything opposing it. Perhaps this is one of the foundational elements of democracy, and the reason behind why it is so successful. Both the left and the right wing politicians of any country are obdurate with their ideologies - firm believers of a more conservative economic expenditure will rarely agree with a radical foreign investment policy. Such dedicated arguments, with each party meticulously finding bugs in every nook and cranny in the opposition's plans, often lead to constructive debates and improvements all round. The whole notion of democracy and parliamentary government will fall apart if every one was noble enought to find flaws in their own thoughts.
Clearly, the topic at hand is intricately intertwined with human psychology. While this philosophy may hold true in a utopia, it fails to hold water in the real world. The very nature of humans precludes the possibility of finding faults in their own ideas. Instead, they tend to be great critiques of other opposing ones.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 76, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'ideas the finest'.
Suggestion: ideas the finest
...op an idea or policy should also be the ideas finest critiques. But, as things generally are...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, may, so, while, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 35.0 33.0505617978 106% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 58.6224719101 107% => 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: 2258.0 2235.4752809 101% => OK
No of words: 443.0 442.535393258 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09706546275 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58776254615 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74210162523 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 264.0 215.323595506 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.595936794582 0.4932671777 121% => OK
syllable_count: 708.3 704.065955056 101% => 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: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.0453462691 60.3974514979 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.1739130435 118.986275619 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2608695652 23.4991977007 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.91304347826 5.21951772744 37% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.106846106094 0.243740707755 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0284722626004 0.0831039109588 34% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0656538130114 0.0758088955206 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0635721510873 0.150359130593 42% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0532659410706 0.0667264976115 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.1392134831 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.8420337079 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 12.1639044944 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.28 8.38706741573 111% => OK
difficult_words: 132.0 100.480337079 131% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => 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: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.