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.
A scandal is by no means a good thing. A person involved in a scandal can have his image tarnished for life. The effect will be exacerbated if he's a public figure or in a high position. But scandals, as they come, can make us aware of unexpected situations that could arise and keep us informed and better prepared if similar events occur in the future. So, although I do agree that a scandal is a devious act, I believe we can derive some positives from it.
Carlos Goshen is a prime example of what being involved in a scandal can do to a person. He was a highly acclaimed and revered CEO of Nissan who strategically revived the company from bankruptcy in the 90s. He not only saved the company but also made it profitable and a global giant by forging an alliance with Renault. This made Nissan the second largest producer of automobiles in Japan after Toyota. But his recent scandal of furtively using the company's profits for his personal benefit has put him behind bars and has had his title as CEO stripped. All his hard work and accomplishments have been wiped out in a blink due to his devious acts. Now, although his schemes were ultimately brought to light, this can influence people to think of short ways to achieve success. It may not be in such a large scale but having read how Carlos managed to deceive the management for so many years (his despicable acts described in detail in newspapers and broadcasted in news channels worldwide) some people can be enticed to perform similar crimes albeit make sure not to fault like him. Likewise, people thinking that they can get away with a scandal without repeating the mistake can only lead to more scandals.
On the contrary, Nissan having unearthed such a scandal can now be more cautious and can impose stricter laws to observe the activities of their new CEO. This applies to other firms too. Another example is that if a person is caught producing spurious currency, the government can make the currency harder to duplicate in order to prevent future scams as such. This can benefit the economy in the long run. If not for this scandal, the government could've been complacent with the security of the nation's currency and not bothered to have bought updates for a prolonged duration. So, sometimes a scandal can bring about an effective change in the system, which no reformer or speaker could
have.
In conclusion, it is important for us to distinguish the good from the bad in a scandal and better prepare ourselves for the future. Doing so, can not only prevent future shams but will also enable us to suspect such events before it burgeons.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 144, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: he's
...life. The effect will be exacerbated if hes a public figure or in a high position. ...
^^^
Line 5, column 497, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'nations'' or 'nation's'?
Suggestion: nations'; nation's
...een complacent with the security of the nations currency and not bothered to have bough...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, likewise, may, second, so, in conclusion, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.4196629213 153% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.3162921348 53% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 37.0 33.0505617978 112% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 58.6224719101 96% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2160.0 2235.4752809 97% => OK
No of words: 463.0 442.535393258 105% => OK
Chars per words: 4.66522678186 5.05705443957 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63868890866 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53180396184 2.79657885939 91% => OK
Unique words: 254.0 215.323595506 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.548596112311 0.4932671777 111% => OK
syllable_count: 688.5 704.065955056 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.1367794879 60.3974514979 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.1818181818 118.986275619 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0454545455 23.4991977007 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.27272727273 5.21951772744 63% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 5.13820224719 214% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.105536413889 0.243740707755 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.034583050457 0.0831039109588 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0394273460187 0.0758088955206 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.06775862147 0.150359130593 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0340454875592 0.0667264976115 51% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 14.1392134831 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.8420337079 120% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.81 12.1639044944 81% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 100.480337079 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => 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: 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.