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.
Scandals are prevalent in most people’s private and professional lives, whether it be through the scandals of others or scandals of one’s own. Scandals have an undeniable tendency to attract attention and start conversation as they reveal the unknown sides of those we feel we know. Such attention, however, may not be unequivocally useful in addressing the issues and affairs of our communities due to the unpredictable nature of both a scandal and the people’s reaction to a scandal.
A scandal may not always provoke the intended reaction or gain the desired exposure to successfully draw attention to a problem. In years past, the Panama Papers were released, detailing the illegal offshoring and money garnering tactics of both famous and more profile wealthy people in the United States. Although the Papers contained bombshell proof of scandal, media coverage of the Papers was limited at best, reactions muted, and the Papers mostly forgotten about soon after, therefore undermining the Papers’ purpose to vindicate those mentioned in the Papers in a proportional scale to the business affairs described. In this scenario, the scandal was not useful in drawing appropriate attention to the illegal affairs of some of America’s elite due to the lack of exposure and reaction to the papers.
Some may argue, however, that other examples of scandals display a scandal’s usefulness in addressing an otherwise undiscussed issue. In 2017, Twitter’s #MeToo platform as well as the exposed scandals of major names in the entertainment industry, like Harry Weinstein and Kevin Spacey, helped successfully draw attention to sexism and workplace inequality in the entertainment industry and was a major player in improvement of Hollywood’s workplace equality. Other scandals of this similar nature, however, have proven to be equally as prominent yet are not as useful in yielding productive reactions and change. Indeed, in the 2016 presidential race, nominee Donald Trump was involved in scandals in which it was exposed that he had used derogatory language and body language towards women and mentally disabled people, yet these scandals did not greatly affect his support base and culminated in him still winning the presidential race. The juxtaposition of the #MeToo and Trump scandals reveal that although they are similar in nature of exposing gender discrimination, the effects of these two scandals were drastically different with the first succesfully helping to improve the intended issue while the latter had negligible effect on Trump’s success. These different consequences showcase scandals’ unpredictable nature in results and therefore make it unreliable tool for efficiently addressing problems.
The capriciousness of scandals make the use of scandal an unreliable method to instigate conversation about an issue despite these scandals’ massive attention or lack thereof. Scandals are highly variable in both the attention they are able to draw as well as the reaction of the public and subsequent events to happen.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 541, Rule ID: EQUALLY_AS[1]
Message: Don't say 'equally as'. You can use either 'equally' or 'as' on its own. When comparing two nouns, use 'just as'.
Suggestion: equally; as; just as
...ilar nature, however, have proven to be equally as prominent yet are not as useful in yiel...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 255, Rule ID: BOTH_AS_WELL_AS[1]
Message: Probable usage error. Use 'and' after 'both'.
Suggestion: and
...oth the attention they are able to draw as well as the reaction of the public and subseque...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, may, so, still, therefore, well, while, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 12.4196629213 24% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 11.3162921348 35% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 33.0505617978 70% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 58.6224719101 116% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2627.0 2235.4752809 118% => OK
No of words: 471.0 442.535393258 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.57749469214 5.05705443957 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65859790218 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16183288214 2.79657885939 113% => OK
Unique words: 243.0 215.323595506 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.515923566879 0.4932671777 105% => OK
syllable_count: 823.5 704.065955056 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 6.24550561798 32% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.2370786517 74% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 31.0 23.0359550562 135% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 76.0857411083 60.3974514979 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 175.133333333 118.986275619 147% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.4 23.4991977007 134% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.66666666667 5.21951772744 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 10.2758426966 39% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
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: 0.14116691326 0.243740707755 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0581121304934 0.0831039109588 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0285362351969 0.0758088955206 38% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0986542532825 0.150359130593 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0269856799677 0.0667264976115 40% => 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: 20.6 14.1392134831 146% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.55 48.8420337079 65% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.6 12.1743820225 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.68 12.1639044944 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.1 8.38706741573 120% => OK
difficult_words: 147.0 100.480337079 146% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 11.2143820225 128% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => 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: 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.