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.
From the word “scandal” itself only, it impress people with a negative and filthy feeling that it relates to some figures’ immoral behaviors in their lives or guilty activities during their work. Yet, from a reversal perspective, some people argue that scandals can exactly unveil those problems in our society. Some idea even goes further and insist that through scandals problems can be solved more efficiently comparing to traditional reformers or speakers could have done. From my perspective, scandal sure is a possible way to find out problems in our society, but depends on it only and overlook other means could result in a disaster.
The most compelling argument against my position could be that once there is any person involved in a social reforming process-name it a speaker or a reformer-the direction of this process will more or less be driven from public benefits to the interests of some specific affiliations, thus makes reforming less efficient or even totally goes to the wrong way. They may fatherly argue that a scandal works as an objective conception that involves no personal interests but reveal social problems only.
That being said, I have to admit that scandals do works properly in some situations, while the actual result depends a lot on how our society uses and reacts to those scandals. For instance, if a scandal about an officer taking advantage of his/her position and receiving bribery from criminals, through the revealing from the media, this scandal could accelerate the process of this officer being prosecuted and facing the justice, which is a good scenario showing the efficiency of scandals. Nevertheless, some politicians might also forge some non-existent scandal to attack their political opponent. By taking advantage of people’s sense of justice, they may even put some pressure on the legal system and get what they want. As has been showing in the totally different examples, we can draw a conclusion that a scandal is indeed an objective tool for our society, and it may be used to reveal problems or could also be used to “create” problems. It is the way how we use it defines it’s degree of efficiency, thus making the claim that scandals are more efficient over other approaches of reforming unjustified.
Another premise that the “scandal first” claim based on is that only through revealing the misbehaving of people in power can our society make progress and provide a better social environment for citizens to live in. However, this is also not totally true. It is undeniable that some people’s wrong-doings amongst our political system, our education system, or any parts in our society will be detrimental to its efficiency and put a bad impact on our quality if life. However, there are also different problems that lead to the same impacts. For example, the structural inefficiency in our medical system, the policy that just not suit the reality well, or that the economical advancement is just not abundant enough to suit everyone’s needs. Those problems has nothing to do with some one’s wrong-doings, thus makes scandals not helpful at all in helping us out. Ironically, speakers or reformers who can inspect and reveal those problems plays a much more efficient role in those situations comparing to through scandals only.
To put it together, scandals is beneficial for our society to reveal wrong-doings of people in power, but it could be abused for other purposes and it is not suitable for all kinds of our social problems. Only through the combination of different kinds of approaches can we tackle different types of problems in our society and provide a better and more promising environment to our people.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 51, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'impresses'?
Suggestion: impresses
...ord 'scandal' itself only, it impress people with a negative and filthy feeli...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 780, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[1]
Message: You should probably use 'have', 'haven'.
Suggestion: have; haven
...t everyone's needs. Those problems has nothing to do with some one's wron...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, look, may, nevertheless, so, thus, well, while, for example, for instance, more or less
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.5258426966 118% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.4196629213 145% => OK
Conjunction : 26.0 14.8657303371 175% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 68.0 33.0505617978 206% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 76.0 58.6224719101 130% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3153.0 2235.4752809 141% => OK
No of words: 610.0 442.535393258 138% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.16885245902 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.96972615649 4.55969084622 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94866086787 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 278.0 215.323595506 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.455737704918 0.4932671777 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 982.8 704.065955056 140% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 6.24550561798 208% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 29.0 23.0359550562 126% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 71.540800721 60.3974514979 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 150.142857143 118.986275619 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.0476190476 23.4991977007 124% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.61904761905 5.21951772744 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 5.13820224719 292% => 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: 0.298285643062 0.243740707755 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.104928227474 0.0831039109588 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.175171134972 0.0758088955206 231% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.186395727808 0.150359130593 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.181553140355 0.0667264976115 272% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.4 14.1392134831 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.04 48.8420337079 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.1743820225 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.3 12.1639044944 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.78 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 143.0 100.480337079 142% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.2143820225 121% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.