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.
The prompt urges the politicians to consider common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals. For some obvious reasons I would like to be "mostly disagree" with the concept and hereby I am obliged to provide necessary elaboration of cetain points in defense of my position.
To begin with - the statement to pursue common ground and reasonable consensus is somewhat conflicting itself. Both the idelas - majority and common field adaptation as well as the elusive ideas - can be adapted based on the situation arises. May be the case which is proper for a common ground acceptance might not be effective for elusive ideas. A good politician should have an acumen to discern the differenc ebetween the right and wrong. He should culture the good practice making a balance in his decision, also looking at the best probably means. There might be some case in which common ideals might not be effective as it will seem, might not help the majority in the long run. In those cases he should take into account some criticcal factors and sensitively handle the issue. For example - in a certain dispute over extending his political party in order to access some mercurial advantages might allure majority of his people. However, if he does not find any solid reason to extend the memebers of his party as well as the reasons from his contemporaries do not convince him, provided that he is the decision maker of his party, should not allow the consequences. The solid reason behind this incidence is that - the memebers of that poitical party might have chosen their principle based on his intelligence and he has gained the trust of his people through various of his providances. It might seem a bit out of the path - however, long term benefits will come provided that the members of that political party keep faith in their person.
Another idea is that - sometime sthe ideas which do not have solid grounds and therefore the performer are not sure about the consequences then he or she should not follow it. If an individual politician follows his ideas, heretical to others, merely based on some "would be" kind of prospects - might cause the crestfall of him. What if the results do not come to his side? What if he failed to serve the purpose? Then the total blame would be towards him and as a result he will loose the trust of his fellow people. Incidences such as - for instance, a politician is pretty much eager to increase the memebers of his party, which he think will conduice some psotiive effects for his people. He remian stringent to his decision even after the denial of majority of his people. Now if he accomplishes the his goal and as a result most of his other members leave the party because of being undermineor or do not give proper dilligence to their works, then what happen? If his decison does not result in his favour and also the other members are losing their trust in him - then it will cause his party to be brittle and ultimately to be seperated out. So, it can easily be seen that - because of his instringment he has lost his party.
So, looking at the points and counter points mentioned above it might be a better idea to make a proper balance between the priority of the fields. Taking a good note on the application of both the consensus and temporal ideas might prove to be a game changer for a politician - taking him to the apex or failing him to the dust.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 248, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[8]
Message: The proper name in singular (May) must be used with a third-person verb: 'is'.
Suggestion: is
...pted based on the situation arises. May be the case which is proper for a common g...
^^
Line 5, column 492, Rule ID: LOOSE_LOSE[4]
Message: Did you mean 'lose' (= miss, waste, suffer the loss etc.)?
Suggestion: lose
... be towards him and as a result he will loose the trust of his fellow people. Inciden...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 647, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'he' must be used with a third-person verb: 'thinks'.
Suggestion: thinks
...ase the memebers of his party, which he think will conduice some psotiive effects for...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 813, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'his'?
Suggestion: the; his
...y of his people. Now if he accomplishes the his goal and as a result most of his other ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, look, may, so, then, therefore, well, for example, for instance, kind of, such as, as a result, as well as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 26.0 12.4196629213 209% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 65.0 33.0505617978 197% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 70.0 58.6224719101 119% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2832.0 2235.4752809 127% => OK
No of words: 600.0 442.535393258 136% => OK
Chars per words: 4.72 5.05705443957 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.94923200384 4.55969084622 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55842908837 2.79657885939 91% => OK
Unique words: 276.0 215.323595506 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.46 0.4932671777 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 903.6 704.065955056 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.9331713393 60.3974514979 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.28 118.986275619 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 23.4991977007 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.6 5.21951772744 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.136344348775 0.243740707755 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0523830452996 0.0831039109588 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0673338180373 0.0758088955206 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.11325659022 0.150359130593 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0695522069596 0.0667264976115 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.1392134831 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.8420337079 114% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.39 12.1639044944 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 131.0 100.480337079 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.