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.
A decision of a politician can affect thousands of people. The prompt suggests that the politicians ought to exploit rational agreement instead of relying on unrealizable concepts. In my opinion, I mostly agree with this notion for the following two reasons, however, I do concede that in some cases, elusive ideas might work to enhance a situation.
First of all, a reasonable consensus can help the politicians to engage more with their people which is necessary to develop a nation. While discussing possible solutions of a problem, if the decision-makers consider their people’s desire and take realizable resolutions, they will gain strong support from the common public which will help them to materialize the solutions. For instance, during the 1980s, the government of Malaysia took numerous big decisions about the future of their country such as initiating a practical education system, providing loans of no interest to entrepreneurs, and utilizing the unused areas of the country by farming. During these decision-making processes, they investigated thoroughly whether they are realistic or not and took experts' and local leaders' opinions whenever necessary; they also encouraged people to work diligently. Since people trusted them, they started working according. As a result, just after 10-15 years, Malaysia achieved one of the largest economies in Asia and became a developed country. Thus, if they employed elusive ideas back then, they would not come to this position today.
Secondly, unrealistic concepts can damage not only the reputation of the politicians but also human lives and property. Sometimes politicians take decisions to gain support or strengthen their power over people even those solutions are not feasible. For example, in 2018 Indian government took a precipitous decision without discussing with any expert to ban the existing 1000 currency notes. They expected to prevent illegal money circulation, identify culprits as well as collect that money from them. But, due to the sudden change in the situation, people got confounded as they could not use their cash money and many of them started to act irrationally. Consequently, the economy started to deteriorate and many economists stated the decision as a non-viable move and then, the government had to withdraw the ban. Therefore, the authority should not reach any unreasonable conclusion that will likely backfire.
On the other hand, in some cases, taking quixotic resolutions might be useful to encourage innovations and creativity among people. Sometimes it becomes necessary to think out of the box if one wants to perform something different even though such approaches have a very low chance of success. For instance, many countries in the world are investigating space research that involves expeditions to Mars. With the current technology, this is not possible at all since Mars is far away from the Earth, and we do not have any spacecraft that can take a human there. Further, we do not necessarily have to go to Mars while we have Earth. Even after these facts, the governments are funding and exhorting researchers to continue their work so that one day they might bring a new world, full of possibilities, to us.
In conclusion, it is imperative that politicians pursue common ground and practical choices instead of illogical ideas to drive the nation in the right way although only in some special cases, something irrational might bring something positive.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, well, while, as to, for example, for instance, in conclusion, such as, as a result, as well as, first of all, in my opinion, in some cases, 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: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 33.0505617978 130% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 71.0 58.6224719101 121% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2936.0 2235.4752809 131% => OK
No of words: 550.0 442.535393258 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.33818181818 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84273464058 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9272027095 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 308.0 215.323595506 143% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.56 0.4932671777 114% => OK
syllable_count: 918.0 704.065955056 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.38483146067 228% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.6731533147 60.3974514979 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.333333333 118.986275619 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9166666667 23.4991977007 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.2916666667 5.21951772744 197% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => 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: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.111951689395 0.243740707755 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0301222867509 0.0831039109588 36% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0366922397682 0.0758088955206 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0626715471747 0.150359130593 42% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.022374207987 0.0667264976115 34% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.1392134831 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.8420337079 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.1743820225 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.99 12.1639044944 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.26 8.38706741573 110% => OK
difficult_words: 158.0 100.480337079 157% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.