Some people have always supported reasonable programs while some claim idealistic programs are much more successful for political issues. Both groups present their reasons which look cogent at the first glance. However, I strongly agree with the former idea and support a reasonable consensus, and I will explain my reasons.
First of all, I believe the program not only should be reasonable but also provides detail of the path for achievement. Without this condition, aware people would not find it persuasive. In a vigilant society, politicians avoid populistic ideas and try to present a program that is completely studied and designed. For instance, an economic thriving program in a developing country should precisely explain in detail the cost of the program, the origin that the fund would be supplied, and each step to achieve their goals. Without such a detailed program, it would not assure folks to support it.
Moreover, for election and political party competition, reasonable programs are much defensible in comparison with an idealistic plan. A reasonable consensus is designed precisely and politicians could explain each part and present them cogently. In election competition, when opposers attack the other programs, a politician with a reasonable program remains in a steady position, while a politician with an idealistic program may find his or her position vulnerable. Besides, idealistic programs seem dishonest, because politicians also know that it is impossible to achieve the proposed goals at least in short term. So, presenting such a program is like defraud people and their supporters.
On the other hand, some people maintain providing an idealistic program can courage people to work harder for that purpose. For instance, a program that depicts a utopia with better traffic conditions, excellent health facilities, and a low unemployment rate is more encouraging than a plan that just focuses on unemployment. Although the reasons that supporters of idealistic programs present look cogent at first glance, I could not accept them. Because, when that politician fails to achieve supposed goals, people would be disappointed and accordingly, they would not accept the politicians' ideas anymore.
In conclusion, though elusive ideal programs may make happy people and persuade them to hard-working in a short time, I strongly believe reasonable programs will work efficiently in long term and are more honest.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, besides, but, first, however, look, may, moreover, so, while, at least, for instance, in conclusion, in short, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.5258426966 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 33.0505617978 85% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 58.6224719101 58% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2070.0 2235.4752809 93% => OK
No of words: 379.0 442.535393258 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.4617414248 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41224685777 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90183012402 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 215.323595506 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.519788918206 0.4932671777 105% => OK
syllable_count: 635.4 704.065955056 90% => 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: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.2633273349 60.3974514979 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.0 118.986275619 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0555555556 23.4991977007 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.94444444444 5.21951772744 171% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.151544875393 0.243740707755 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0578513011628 0.0831039109588 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0452053937004 0.0758088955206 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0989526909129 0.150359130593 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0413410391538 0.0667264976115 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.1392134831 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.8420337079 85% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.39 12.1639044944 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.38706741573 102% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 100.480337079 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.