I disagree with the statement mentioned in the given passage, due to some arguments that I will expose in the following passages.
First of all, a question concerning the importance of scandals as means of spreading information should be asked. The problem here is that scandals are seen as a method for bringing in touchy topics to a wide public, as mentioned in the passage. But I quite disagree with this part, because a curios and prudent person, who is interested in the topic of the scandal, will always seek an opportunity to gain information about it. As I mentioned, scandals dispense the information throughout wide public, and from this point of view I cannot concede its importance. But is it as important and crucial as it is mentioned? I think that despite the ability of scandals of spreading information it has nothing to do with the importance of solving the problem since it will always be noticed by the target segment, those who give a great importance to the specific problem, and a proper solution will be given by them no matter the presence of a scandal.
There is another question referring to the precision of the information carried by a scandal. It can sometimes be misleading, because there are always two entities standing behind a scandal. It is not a secret that they can include wide range of interested parties and from this prospective it is crucial to understand the truth. The interest of two entities is lying under the reason of the problem. Everyone, as a matter of being involved in a scandal, tries to undermine the opponent’s position, thus leading the public to think in a favorable way for him. The problem of precise information refers to the mass media as well. To gain wide popularity among the readers, many representatives of mass media try to manipulate with the headings of the news. I have come across with this problem several times when I was surfing the Internet, and it is not only annoying but disturbing, leading me to think about the absence of regulatory policy in this field. So, when referring to this problem, it should be mentioned that a speaker or reformer, who is not an interested entity in the scandal, will give more precise and accurate information about the problem than the involved ones.
However, if a scandal is not presented in a sophisticated way, being as pure as distilled water, it will provide precious information for the ordinary people to understand it and judge in a rational way. Nevertheless, we are being victims of the imprecise information every day.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 538, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a favorable way" with adverb for "favorable"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...ition, thus leading the public to think in a favorable way for him. The problem of precise inform...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 40, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a sophisticated way" with adverb for "sophisticated"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
... However, if a scandal is not presented in a sophisticated way, being as pure as distilled water, it w...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 186, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a rational way" with adverb for "rational"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...inary people to understand it and judge in a rational way. Nevertheless, we are being victims of ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, nevertheless, so, still, thus, well, i think, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.5258426966 118% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 33.0505617978 115% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 58.6224719101 113% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 12.9106741573 163% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2116.0 2235.4752809 95% => OK
No of words: 437.0 442.535393258 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.84210526316 5.05705443957 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57214883401 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89141097459 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 215.323595506 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.469107551487 0.4932671777 95% => OK
syllable_count: 679.5 704.065955056 97% => 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: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.4698251413 60.3974514979 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.555555556 118.986275619 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.2777777778 23.4991977007 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.61111111111 5.21951772744 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 10.2758426966 39% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 5.13820224719 272% => Less 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: 0.156498411729 0.243740707755 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0513327211795 0.0831039109588 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0297794735291 0.0758088955206 39% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0931857417106 0.150359130593 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0299276317129 0.0667264976115 45% => 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: 13.5 14.1392134831 95% => 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: 11.09 12.1639044944 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.26 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 100.480337079 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => 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: 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 by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.