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.
Emotion aroused when a beloved celebrity is flung down to the ground because of a single scandal is bitter. We wanted this person to proceed his or her career, developing potentials further and reaching for the happy ending of his or her personal story. The aggregation of such bitterness surely has positive side: public can reallocate the fame, wealth, and popularity they can bestow to more right ones by correcting their perspectives on the candidates. However, we should not forget that it is not always the case that a correction always means the definite solution.
The most important characteristic of scandal---and most useful one--- is to debunk doubling lives of hypocrats. They often belie their stink personalities by limiting their appearances on camera. Scandals punish them by revealing their lies. For instance, Clinton, once the most popular president in the United States historically, suffered from the scandal that he had oral sex with his secretary; he denied at first, but followin evidence made him confess his inappropriate misdemeanor as the president. People in the country realized that he is, and has not been a person they have thought, and they took the support for the president back. The justice was achieved warning post presidents to carefully manage their private lives. Like this example, celebrities sometimes make a wrong decision between what they are expected to do and what they want to do. The existence of scandals deter them from undesirable behaviors ex ante.
Also, scandals often generates new stars, who are to get the resources from people. Hillary Clinton, the first lady of the president Clinton, dealt with the hard time because of his husband with gut and decency, and people were moved by her strong mind. After the scandal was somewhat settled, she got famous than any other female politicians, showing her abilities as a politician, administrators, and mother. Though the scandal was the harshest moment for her entire life, it was also the chance for her to grow as an independent politician. As a result, she got elected as the presidential candidate of Democratic Party for the presidential election in 2017. She did not become the first female president of the United States, but the case shows that the right reallocation from a scandal can change the history of country.
As shown above, scandals have power. Unfortunately, such power often becomes a target for conniving people who want to manipulate the aggregate opinion of people. In Korea, private life is sometimes used to phasing political enemies away. Jungang Daily, one of the biggest daily journal in Korea, intentionally leaked false information about the leader of prosecutor, Dongwhan Kim, now a private lawyer. The journal claimed that he had a son born outside the marital relationship, and regardless of the truth of the scandal he had to resign from his position. Though it was proved that the scandal was groundless, his career was doomed and no one believes that he can come back to the prosecutor office again. This sort of side effect of scandals would occur wherever incentives exist, alerting us to be vigilant to distinguish between fake and legitimate kinds of scandals.
We might benefit from scandals which reveal the true characteristics of celebrated people; we might offend innocent people by condemning them with false stories. What we have to do is, take a moment to figure out the truth and use the information for justice, not for gossip.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 916, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'behaviors'' or 'behavior's'?
Suggestion: behaviors'; behavior's
...of scandals deter them from undesirable behaviors ex ante. Also, scandals often gener...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, so, for instance, sort of, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 57.0 33.0505617978 172% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 69.0 58.6224719101 118% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2929.0 2235.4752809 131% => OK
No of words: 572.0 442.535393258 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12062937063 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89045207381 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8012399843 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 319.0 215.323595506 148% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.557692307692 0.4932671777 113% => OK
syllable_count: 920.7 704.065955056 131% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 8.0 1.77640449438 450% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 20.2370786517 133% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.4763098819 60.3974514979 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.481481481 118.986275619 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1851851852 23.4991977007 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.55555555556 5.21951772744 49% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 17.0 5.13820224719 331% => 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: 0.110481904681 0.243740707755 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0295371304797 0.0831039109588 36% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0202345953074 0.0758088955206 27% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0615184472722 0.150359130593 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0151428076419 0.0667264976115 23% => 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: 13.3 14.1392134831 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.1639044944 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.21 8.38706741573 110% => OK
difficult_words: 164.0 100.480337079 163% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.