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 de

Essay topics:

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.

As worldwide ever more connected, to bring benefits to the people they served, it’s necessary for politicians to seek common ground and reasonable consensus. The claim has made it seem contradictory to pursuing elusive ideals. However, it’s possible that sometimes common ground and consensus could be based on elusive ideals. In fact, the more elusive the ideals are, the stronger need for seeking common ground and reasonable consensus.

Politicians of the past and present have demonstrated to the world the benefits of operating under common ground and reasonable consensus, ranging from forming various unions, reaching trade deals and collaborating in technology, sciences, etc. From the level of individuals, we know that it’s beneficial to everyone in a group to collaborating on the basis of common ground and reasonable consensus. The same principle can be applied to the politicians of nations. When they are to apply it, there are multiple benefits to their nations and the people who they served. Example of unions could be EU. Nations of EU are relatively safer from invading of outside aggressive military expansion; they are reaping the benefits of using the same agreed upon currency, which makes the economic transaction easier and their economic state more stable; scientists of these nations are involved in programs with better financial support and assistance from each other, play a more significant role in scientific world. No wonder trade deals among nations like TPP are attracting more nations to join them. Only after reaching the common ground and reasonable consensus, a nation can step into the next level in terms of its stand on international arena.Only then the comprehensive potential of the nation can be realized, politicians of the nation can be viewed as taking their responsibility seriously.

Elusive ideals can never be seen as irrelevant to reaching common ground and reasonable consensus;a lots of common ground and reasonable consensus have build on elusive ideals. For example, humanitarian has been one of the elusive ideals that many nations pursue. Humanitarian itself is hard to measure, however, the application of this elusive ideal has often become the common ground and reasonable consensus politicians shared. One of the rules from TPP is forbidding of child labor. The thinking that child labor is inhumane has been shared by most nations, which disprove the claim that politicians should not pursue elusive ideals.

Politicians are selected by people to work for a better future of a nation. Based on the previous argument, we could all agree that politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus. Instead of ignoring elusive ideals, politicians should acknowledge and explore their applications, for common grounds and consensus are built upon them.

Votes
Average: 5 (5 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1244, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Only
...rms of its stand on international arena.Only then the comprehensive potential of the...
^^^^
Line 5, column 99, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a lot' or simply 'lots'?
Suggestion: a lot; lots
... common ground and reasonable consensus;a lots of common ground and reasonable consens...
^^^^^^

Discourse Markers used:
['however', 'if', 'so', 'then', 'for example', 'in fact']

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.233606557377 0.240241500013 97% => OK
Verbs: 0.159836065574 0.157235817809 102% => OK
Adjectives: 0.141393442623 0.0880659088768 161% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0368852459016 0.0497285424764 74% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0327868852459 0.0444667217837 74% => OK
Prepositions: 0.118852459016 0.12292977631 97% => OK
Participles: 0.0655737704918 0.0406280797675 161% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.84355210595 2.79330140395 102% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0286885245902 0.030933414821 93% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.0016655270985 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0799180327869 0.0997080785238 80% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0225409836066 0.0249443105267 90% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0102459016393 0.0148568991511 69% => OK

Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2841.0 2732.02544248 104% => OK
No of words: 442.0 452.878318584 98% => OK
Chars per words: 6.42760180995 6.0361032391 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58517132086 4.58838876751 100% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.434389140271 0.366273622748 119% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.314479638009 0.280924506359 112% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.223981900452 0.200843997647 112% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.156108597285 0.132149295362 118% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84355210595 2.79330140395 102% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 219.290929204 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.477375565611 0.48968727796 97% => OK
Word variations: 53.1653013996 55.4138127331 96% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6194690265 97% => OK
Sentence length: 22.1 23.380412469 95% => OK
Sentence length SD: 87.7863742274 59.4972553346 148% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.05 141.124799967 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1 23.380412469 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.3 0.674092028746 45% => More Discourse Markers wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.94800884956 81% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.21349557522 38% => OK
Readability: 53.5479638009 51.4728631049 104% => OK
Elegance: 1.82142857143 1.64882698954 110% => OK

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.390584629234 0.391690518653 100% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.149459904718 0.123202303941 121% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0810310795179 0.077325440228 105% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.538630735028 0.547984918172 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.132196095113 0.149214159877 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.172529211849 0.161403998019 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0918225202394 0.0892212321368 103% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.414535871866 0.385218514788 108% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0174451282367 0.0692045440612 25% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.307868007076 0.275328986314 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.033309587022 0.0653680567796 51% => OK

Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.4325221239 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.30420353982 57% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88274336283 61% => OK
Positive topic words: 10.0 7.22455752212 138% => OK
Negative topic words: 0.0 3.66592920354 0% => More negative topic words wanted.
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.70907079646 74% => OK
Total topic words: 12.0 13.5995575221 88% => OK

---------------------
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 to cover all aspects.