Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speakers or reformer ever could
Saying that scandals are useful for focusing our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could, this view claims that scandals are useful for making our society better. In many ways, it is hard to deny that a society could progress better through such problematic issues. In my opinion, however, scandalous headlines are harmful to changing and reforming our society rather than beneficial for our society.
Of course, no one could deny that scandals have a positive effect on solving problems. When it comes to explosive attention to certain problems such as global warming, waste and low efficiency of using government budget, or politicians’ transgression of a law. For example, in Korea, one media broadcasted news about the abysmal service environment of firefighters. That news made people of Korean burn with rage about the incompetence of the government. Then, the Congress hastily made a law for improving service environment of firefighters. This implies that a scandal could make a better society.
Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean that every scandal makes our attention focus on social problems. We are living in so-called ‘the age of information’, so there is a lot of news including scandals in a day. This trait of our time makes us blind to more important issues. To make more profit, media companies elicit provocative headlines to attract more people. As a result, people click more stimulating pieces of news which are not good for society but achieving only fun than politically, socially more important issues. This implies that provocative issues always doesn’t make a good result
Furthermore, a scandal can make a society regress rather than progress. When it comes to the issues which are very controversial, it generates a wasting feud among the composers of a society, especially when the two parties are very differentiated and they cannot compromise about the issue. For example, in Korea, there was a case that feminists argued as a misogyny hate crime. So most of the media covered the case telling that sexism is pervasive in Korea society. It caused an extremely hot debate between men and women. In fact, it was not a misogyny crime according to police. So, mans began to condemn women. Although the scandal made the debate about sexism in Korea, it failed to make a change in Korea. Even it generated more hostility between man and women. This also implies that a scandal always could develop any society
To sum, in spite of, general validity of positive effect of scandals to a society, in terms of issues which are very controversial or trait of mass media, scandals do not always good to society. Taken together, I cannot fully agree that scandals could affect society as a positive factor. Only by ignoring the role of stimulating or very contentious issues, one could accept the notion about scandals
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 290, Rule ID: ONE_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use the numeral 'one' with plural words. Did you mean 'one medium', 'a medium', or simply 'media'?
Suggestion: one medium; a medium; media
...ession of a law. For example, in Korea, one media broadcasted news about the abysmal serv...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, nevertheless, so, then, for example, in fact, of course, such as, as a result, in my opinion, in spite of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.3162921348 168% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 33.0505617978 115% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 58.6224719101 102% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2433.0 2235.4752809 109% => OK
No of words: 476.0 442.535393258 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11134453782 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67091256922 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8617015967 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 215.323595506 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.495798319328 0.4932671777 101% => OK
syllable_count: 785.7 704.065955056 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 14.0 6.24550561798 224% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.38483146067 228% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 53.6507581135 60.3974514979 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.5769230769 118.986275619 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3076923077 23.4991977007 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.46153846154 5.21951772744 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.2758426966 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 16.0 5.13820224719 311% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.269790529497 0.243740707755 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0665682141419 0.0831039109588 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.114622688308 0.0758088955206 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.16180256665 0.150359130593 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.137219342164 0.0667264976115 206% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.1392134831 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.8420337079 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.1639044944 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.44 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 100.480337079 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.