Politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals.
I believe the politicians should pursue the goals that are shared by majority of the society. Meanwhile, they are also allowed to have their personal understanding and ideals. However, we propose that the elusive ideal should not be opposed to the goal of common ground. If politicians want to achieve some elusive ideals that are harmful to most of people’s interests, then we should definitely not allow this scenario to happen.
To begin with, despite the considerable contribution to building a new China, Mao Zedong had caused a great deal of suffering to the Chinese people and the entire country due to his unrealistic ideals. In late 1950s, he launched the so-called Great Leap Forward movement with a romantic plan that China can surpass the economic power of western developed countries such as England and United States. As a result of his grave mistakes, many Chinese people are died of starvation and the economy of the entire country had also dramatically declined. Also, with the poetic vision that young people in the city should be re-educated in the rural area by peasants, millions of teenagers at that time were sent to the places far from their home and were separated from their families. Many of them spent their entire life in poor countryside's and could not get back to where they belong to. An entire generation of Chinese people lost the opportunities to receive formal education and no wonder that the entire country suffered from the decrease of economy, military and culture. It is Mao Zedong’s unrealistic ideals that make China worser and worser after 1949. We admit that Mao is excellent in combating in the war, but we could not think him as a respectful governor since he put too many personal visions instead of people’s real interests when making great decisions.
After Mao Zedong, China fortunately had one pragmatic leader, Deng Xiaoping. With less charismatic image, Deng focused on building consensus and common grounds within the Chinese people after he took the power. He realized that the most important and urgent task for Chinese people at that time was that the country needs to take an immediate action to recover from the mess and develop the economy. Through the open-door policy and the privatization of the rural economy of China, Deng successfully rejuvenated the Chinese economy and lifted millions of people out of poverty. Deng’s ideal is conducive to the common grounds at that time. By taking a more practical approach and focusing on the common grounds of people interests, he also gained more support and respect from both Chinese people and international world.
As illustrated through the stories of two political figures in the same country, we can come to a consensus that political should always make sure their personal ideals is conducive to the common ground of majority people in the country. Otherwise, the tragedies will be caused by those politicians who overlook the danger of pursuing elusive political ideals.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 343, Rule ID: MOST_SOME_OF_NNS[1]
Message: After 'most of', you should use 'the' ('most of the people') or simply say ''most people''.
Suggestion: most of the people; most people
...some elusive ideals that are harmful to most of people’s interests, then we should definitely ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1267, Rule ID: HE_THE[1]
Message: Did you mean 'since the put'?
Suggestion: since the put
... not think him as a respectful governor since he put too many personal visions instead of pe...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, look, so, then, while, such as, as a result, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.5258426966 72% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 33.0505617978 118% => OK
Preposition: 73.0 58.6224719101 125% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 12.9106741573 46% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2507.0 2235.4752809 112% => OK
No of words: 494.0 442.535393258 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07489878543 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71445763274 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64250689599 2.79657885939 94% => OK
Unique words: 254.0 215.323595506 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.514170040486 0.4932671777 104% => OK
syllable_count: 798.3 704.065955056 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.2231269847 60.3974514979 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.35 118.986275619 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.7 23.4991977007 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.1 5.21951772744 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.192513036749 0.243740707755 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0717113769587 0.0831039109588 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0905357505483 0.0758088955206 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164768647977 0.150359130593 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.110966704359 0.0667264976115 166% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.1392134831 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.8420337079 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.1639044944 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 100.480337079 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => 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: 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.