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.
Politics can be a perplexing game played by various individuals which conclusively affects a massive group of people. It is important to comprehend the fundamental importance of objectives set by politicians which thereby affect the civilians of a particular region. Having a pragmatic approach towards achieving goals that would be utmost help towards the society should be of the highest priority. Being idealistic in nature can belie the time and the amount of work involved in bringing these objectives into the real world. I certainly agree that the goals and objectives pursued by politicians should be reasonable rather than unusually elusive in nature.
It is important to understand that we live in a world where people expect changes to be flexible and quick in nature. The only way to ensure the swiftness in productive change in society is to implement practical and reasonable demands which would be accepted by our society and thereby be promptly accomplished by our political kingdom. These small goals and objectives leads to massive societal change which is essentially needed as demanded by the idealistic nature. A good example on how idealistic nature fails to introduce strong productive change can be seen in the government of India, the second most populated country in the world has a diminishing approach of management style.
This is essentially due to elusive ideals followed by the government to merely give the impression of deceiving effort they apply towards the development of country. The program of “swatch bharath” was primarily started has cleaning campaign where the prime minister tried to focus on having a garbage free country turned out to be an advertising campaign. Rather than focusing on spreading maxims which rhyme, the politician could focus on better waste management, better methods of garbage disposal and having an efficient recycling station in the country. Sweeping streets with brooms do bring a ton of publicity and seems idealistic in nature but real change can be retrieved through practical approaches.
One might say bringing idealistic approaches can be a good way of bringing an essence of enthusiasm towards the implementation process, but if the nature of this tedious process is carefully studied, we can see that one might give up on an exhausting and vexing idealistic approach. Politicians must ensure practical tasks which individuals could believe and envision the change occurring, if the idea is too elusive in nature, one must have blind faith to rigorously work towards the task. And it is a known fact that people do not have blind faith in politicians rather they would want reasonable goals that could be achieved with a good sense of guarantee. Great leaders such as Mahathma Gandhi did not depend on idealistic motives but had a realistic approach towards a problem. A good example would be the boycotting of British goods, if Gandhi proceeded to follow idealistic approach of fighting the British through the tools of violence rather than simply inhibit the use of their goods, the independence of the Indian governance would have more bloodshed written in their history.
Small practical goals set up by a politician tend to be a better way of implementing them rather than the idealistic way of retrieving it. If politicians could agree on to realistic approaches, faster and efficient changes would be bolstered by people would believe in them.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, second, so, thus, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.5258426966 128% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 23.0 12.4196629213 185% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 33.0505617978 76% => OK
Preposition: 77.0 58.6224719101 131% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2905.0 2235.4752809 130% => OK
No of words: 553.0 442.535393258 125% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25316455696 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84932490483 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89717305296 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 258.0 215.323595506 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.466546112116 0.4932671777 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 898.2 704.065955056 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.38483146067 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 23.0359550562 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.9321263506 60.3974514979 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.25 118.986275619 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.65 23.4991977007 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.7 5.21951772744 33% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 10.2758426966 175% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.83258426966 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.110417621569 0.243740707755 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0436701365544 0.0831039109588 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0538705944803 0.0758088955206 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0723302916745 0.150359130593 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0284588267841 0.0667264976115 43% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
automated_readability_index: 17.1 14.1392134831 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.8420337079 90% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.47 12.1639044944 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.83 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 135.0 100.480337079 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 11.8971910112 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.2143820225 114% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
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.