Politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals.
In society nowadays, people often elect politicians to serve for local governments and the country. The ideology and campaigns of the politicians often affect the support of constituents and the effectiveness of his or her term in office. As far as I'm concerned, I think it is beneficial for politicians to pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals. If policies are solely built around elusive ideals and practicality is ignored, the development of society might be hampered. Furthermore, pursuing common ground and consensus can greatly speed up the process of laying down laws and its enactment. Though it is certainly important for politicians to think of high-minded purposes that could benefit society, the possible outgrowths of these policies should first be carefully evaluated.
If politicians solely aim to pursue elusive ideals and disregard the impracticality of these ideals, then the well-being of society might be greatly undermined. Take the Cultural Revolution and The Great Leap movement as and example. The ideal Mao pursued is that antiquated knowledge that shackle people's minds should be neglected and society should embrace technology new ideologies. However, this high-minded pursuit of advancement resulted in a severe economic downturn and the destruction of precious vestiges around the nation. Since the practicality and possible outgrowth of the ideal is not carefully evaluated, the well-being of society is greatly harmed.
On the other hand, if politicians seek common ground and strive to reach reasonable consensus between different parties, both the efficiency and effective of the government could greatly increase. Consider the vast amount of factors that come into play when legislators are laying down laws and officials are implementing policies. Proposals might be vetoed by politicians from different parties while laws might be rejected by related stakeholders. If politicians pursue common ground, the legislation and administrative process would be more smooth.
However, seeking common ground it is not to say that politicians should jettison their ideals and their fervent to improve society. In fact, the motive to transform society into a better place is often the reason why society advances. However, these ideals must first be meticulously evaluated and their practicality assessed. Scholars, legislators, and different interest groups should all discuss with politicians about their thoughts. If these voices are not taken into consideration and politicians act in their own will, this would plague the notion that politicians are public servants and should act on behalf of a nation's people.
In conclusion, it is beneficial for politicians to pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals since the former results in a effective administration and the latter could undermine the well-being of society. However, it is still important for politicians to pursue ideals that might benefit society if its results are carefully evaluated.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 250, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: I'm
...of his or her term in office. As far as Im concerned, I think it is beneficial for...
^^
Line 9, column 153, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...sive ideals since the former results in a effective administration and the latter...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, however, if, so, still, then, well, while, i think, in conclusion, in fact, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.5258426966 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.4196629213 153% => OK
Conjunction : 25.0 14.8657303371 168% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 33.0505617978 85% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 58.6224719101 87% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2598.0 2235.4752809 116% => OK
No of words: 460.0 442.535393258 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.64782608696 5.05705443957 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6311565067 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00692018486 2.79657885939 108% => OK
Unique words: 220.0 215.323595506 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.478260869565 0.4932671777 97% => OK
syllable_count: 801.0 704.065955056 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 3.10617977528 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.4544379968 60.3974514979 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.090909091 118.986275619 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9090909091 23.4991977007 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.13636363636 5.21951772744 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => 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: 0.449397902631 0.243740707755 184% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.133283360775 0.0831039109588 160% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.135494442952 0.0758088955206 179% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.279659757893 0.150359130593 186% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.111041837078 0.0667264976115 166% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 14.1392134831 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.8420337079 87% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.49 12.1639044944 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 100.480337079 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4 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.