Politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals.
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 recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
Some people have always supported reasonable programs while some other 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 former idea and support 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 completely studied and designed. For instance, an economical thriving program in a developing country should precisely explain in detail about 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 designed precisely and politicians could explain about each individual part and present them cogently. In election competition, when opposers attack the other programs, a politician with a reasonable program remain in a steady position, while an politician with idealistic program may find his or her position vulnerable. In addition, idealistic programs seem dishonest, because politicians also know that it is impossible to achieve to the proposed goals at least in short term. So, presenting such that program is like defraud people and his supporters.
On the other hand, some people maintain providing idealistic program courage people to work harder for that purpose. For instance, a program that depict an utopia with better traffic conditions, excellent health facilities, low unemployment rate is more encouragement than a plan that just focus 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 any more.
In conclusion, thought elusive ideal programs may make happy people and persuade them for hard work in short time, I strongly believe reasonable programs will work efficiently on long term and are more honest.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 401, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...gram remain in a steady position, while an politician with idealistic program may ...
^^
Line 4, column 153, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...se. For instance, a program that depict an utopia with better traffic conditions, ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, but, first, however, look, may, moreover, so, while, at least, for instance, in addition, 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 : 9.0 19.5258426966 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 33.0505617978 88% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 58.6224719101 63% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2078.0 2235.4752809 93% => OK
No of words: 376.0 442.535393258 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.52659574468 5.05705443957 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40348946061 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85928376024 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 215.323595506 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.529255319149 0.4932671777 107% => OK
syllable_count: 636.3 704.065955056 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: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.8212980084 60.3974514979 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.444444444 118.986275619 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8888888889 23.4991977007 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.16666666667 5.21951772744 176% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => 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: 0.152803911392 0.243740707755 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.057892444628 0.0831039109588 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0444707672808 0.0758088955206 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100983913253 0.150359130593 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0382707023321 0.0667264976115 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.1392134831 107% => 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: 14.79 12.1639044944 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 100.480337079 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.