Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.
With the 24-hour news cycle and ubuiqity of social media, scandals sometimes feel impossible to avoid. Scandals, by their very nature, are emotion-driven and impactful; it's what separates them merely from rumors or news stories. As such, they provide powerful avenues for revelation, discussion, and reflection in a society in ways that speakers often cannot match.
Scandals often focus on the institutions of our society: the wealthy, the powerful, or the influential. As such, they often reveal to the public information about those giants in our nation, informing our view of those in power. Take, for example, the recent sex trafficking allegations against Jeffrey Epstein. While the story is obviously still unfolding, the potential consequences are unimaginable. The current rumors of widespread involvement among those in power, if shown to be true, would rile tremendous outrage among the public, and rightfully so -- in our country, citizens deserve to better understand the character of those in charge. The Epstein scandal has, so far, gripped the public headspace harder than any speaker could: people can choose to attend a speech, but they can't avoid the presence of scandal on their myriad screens.
In addition, these scandals shedding light on a society's institutions can help keep these institutions accountable. For example, look at the recent school admissions scandal, which shed light on years of bribery and corruption among admissions offices in colleges across the nation. Not only did the scandal unveil to the public an intense network of corruption among the nation's wealthy, but it spurred on a movement of change. These schools paid fines for their injustices and, in the future, will hopefully face greater scrutiny in their admissions decisions.
Scandals also allow the public to send a message upward to those in charge by taking a stance on issues that arise. In recent years, the contagion-like series of police brutality scandals has sparked a fierce public movement for better accountability and restraint among law inforcement. Millions have expressed their opinions, and through this movement, the public has shown its sentiment to the government loud and clear. Speakers can reach thousands in a large venue; scandals like this one can reach millions. Again, the resolution to this scandal is hazy and distant, but only through continual scandal has the public been able to so strongly voice their stance.
But responses to scandals are often more mixed, and in these cases they force the public to reflect and introspect. When a Caucasian Texas student accused the government of "reverse racism" through its Affirmative Action program, many people threw their voice into the fray in support. Yet, many others championed the program as a pillar of inclusivity. The public nature of scandal thrust the issue in front of fresh eyes and forced countless minds to turn inwards and consult their values. Through this process, people were able to form new opinions and discover truths that they stood by, all due to the scandal that took over their Facebook feed.
Scandals can grip the public in a way that speakers struggle to do. They invoke debate, reveal wrongdoings, and give people a platform for expressing their belief. While scandals are all too often associated with the frivolous worlds of celebrity dating, distant relatives of public figures, and the like, they can provide an immensely powerful force in including the public in a society's operations.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
With the 24-hour news cycle and ubuiqity...
^^^^
Line 1, column 174, Rule ID: IT_IS[6]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: it's; it is
...ture, are emotion-driven and impactful; its what separates them merely from rumors ...
^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ways that speakers often cannot match. Scandals often focus on the institutions...
^^^^
Line 2, column 792, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...can choose to attend a speech, but they cant avoid the presence of scandal on their ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ce of scandal on their myriad screens. In addition, these scandals shedding lig...
^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...crutiny in their admissions decisions. Scandals also allow the public to send a...
^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ble to so strongly voice their stance. But responses to scandals are often more...
^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...al that took over their Facebook feed. Scandals can grip the public in a way th...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, look, so, still, while, for example, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.5258426966 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 44.0 33.0505617978 133% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 82.0 58.6224719101 140% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2957.0 2235.4752809 132% => OK
No of words: 559.0 442.535393258 126% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28980322004 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.86242540663 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73287280165 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 310.0 215.323595506 144% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.554561717352 0.4932671777 112% => OK
syllable_count: 887.4 704.065955056 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 11.0 1.77640449438 619% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.9925865031 60.3974514979 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.730769231 118.986275619 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5 23.4991977007 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.42307692308 5.21951772744 46% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 7.80617977528 102% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 5.13820224719 272% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.167832959419 0.243740707755 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0510814298764 0.0831039109588 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0492565858915 0.0758088955206 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0929220717591 0.150359130593 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0378231186236 0.0667264976115 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.1392134831 100% => OK
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: 13.4 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.11 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 157.0 100.480337079 156% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.