Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
The topic can be interpreted from different angles for examining the usefulness of scandals. Undeniably, scandals reveal the true morals of the ruling authority or head of a system which is hidden from everyone. Nevertheless, they do not help people to know the better working solutions for a problem. They themselves are new problems raised due to greediness and selfishness of powerful people. Hence, I hold on the idea that scandals are not helpful for grabbing our attention to existing problems in a way that reformers cannot do.
First of all, a scandal is the wrong deed performed by a powerful and superior person or a group of people forced only by greed and selfishness. It is caused due to a greedy desire for having more materialistic things like money, property, power, etcetera. To illustrate, a politician makes an illegal deal with other nation to export a product which was not meant to be exported for the sake of money. This causes a rise in the usual price of the product. In this circumstance, a scandal occurs due to the greediness of the politician for more money whose effects are faced by the citizens of the same country. Furthermore, scandals create unnecessary problems in a stable system. They do not help to find the solution to the existing issues faced by the system. In contrast to popular belief of exposing unnoticeable ways to solve a problem. It will only expose the root cause of the problem occurred a long time back but would not help to find feasible solutions to the same. Apparently, they shift our attention to the root cause of the problem rather than helping us to focus on figuring out solutions to the problem.
Admittedly, scandals might help us to find out true morals of the authority of the system, thus giving people more knowledge to elect or choose a better one next time. This is specifically true when a ruling party emerges for scandals occurred years ago. The citizens now have a better understanding of the party and thus, they will avoid electing them again for the next time. However, it cannot be claimed that scandals will help us to focus our attention to existing problems in different ways. They are useful in exposing root causes of the problem. In this case, exposing of the scandal will be of a little help to solve the rise in the price of household products. Hence, one should not hold to the usefulness of scandals in exposing a problem for believing that they help people to see in the problem from a different angle.
In conclusion, although scandals are useful in finding out causes of an existing problem, they are of little help in finding ways to solve them. A reliable solution to the current problem faced by the people will only be designed by the reformer of the system.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 28, Rule ID: HELP_TO_FIND[1]
Message: This phrase is probably grammatically incorrect. Write 'help us find' instead.
Suggestion: help us find
... problem. Admittedly, scandals might help us to find out true morals of the authority of the...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, but, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, nevertheless, so, thus, in conclusion, in contrast, first of all, in contrast to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 29.0 33.0505617978 88% => OK
Preposition: 80.0 58.6224719101 136% => 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: 2282.0 2235.4752809 102% => OK
No of words: 481.0 442.535393258 109% => OK
Chars per words: 4.74428274428 5.05705443957 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68313059816 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65990096697 2.79657885939 95% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 215.323595506 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.432432432432 0.4932671777 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 718.2 704.065955056 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 6.24550561798 208% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.3352394198 60.3974514979 54% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 95.0833333333 118.986275619 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0416666667 23.4991977007 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.70833333333 5.21951772744 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 17.0 5.13820224719 331% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.189358497862 0.243740707755 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.065542662203 0.0831039109588 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0487442561274 0.0758088955206 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.141893701188 0.150359130593 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.017798445341 0.0667264976115 27% => 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: 10.9 14.1392134831 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.8420337079 122% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.1743820225 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.21 12.1639044944 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.88 8.38706741573 94% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 100.480337079 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => 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.