Scandals are useful because they focus our attention to problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could
Societal problems that need fixing often require public support, which requires the masses to be informed of these problems in the first place. Scandals are a swift and sure method of getting this done. With a few exceptions that are discussed later, scandals aid the process of reform, and are an invaluable tool in the collective hands of a population.
Scandals make an amazing use of the grape-vine, the earliest mass communication channel known to mankind, which is an intrinsic, indispensible element of human society. Thus, information flows naturally and no resources are expended for its dissemination. Conscious efforts to spread awareness, on the other hand, are an expensive affair and are met with passivity from the vast majority. However, it must be noted, that scandals are inherently local in nature, and unlike awareness campaigns, will not have the same efficacy outside of their geographical area of origin.
In stead of seeing scandals as an alternative method of putting problem into the spotlight, we ought to think of them as just another way of sparking the conversation that will ultimately be carried forward by speakers and acted upon by reformers, without whom change is neigh on impossible. In this way, scandals perform the role of bringing a sense of urgency to the general public and sparking the fire of revolutions. Actions that might have taken months if not years, are hastily brought about in the light of a recent scandal. An example of this would be the gravity of rape culture in India, which recieved more attention than ever since the horrifying Nirbhaya case came to light.
Although scandals are thus helpful in instigating discussion, they sometimes have the opposite effect. In case of celebrities like Indian actor Salman Khan, who in the eyes of the public can do no harm, scandals worth discussing are simply swept under the rug and no action is taken for years. In stead of spurring the public into action, discussions take the wrong turn and everything except the enormity of the actor's crimes is speculated upon. Such scandals have little to no positive effects on society.
In conclusion, scandals can benefit society if discussions surrounding them are focused in the right direction, usually due to the efforts of speakers and reformers. If not, however, they serve no useful purpose than gossip fodder. Even then, speakers and reformers can and do outperform scandals in bringing attention to societal problems, especially for large-scale problems that affect many people spread over large areas.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: IN_STEAD_OF[1]
Message: Did you mean 'Instead of'?
Suggestion: Instead of
...f their geographical area of origin. In stead of seeing scandals as an alternative metho...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 370, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...e of bringing a sense of urgency to the general public and sparking the fire of revolutions. A...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 295, Rule ID: IN_STEAD_OF[1]
Message: Did you mean 'Instead of'?
Suggestion: Instead of
...e rug and no action is taken for years. In stead of spurring the public into action, discus...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, so, then, thus, in conclusion, in the first place, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2152.0 2260.96107784 95% => OK
No of words: 416.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.17307692308 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51620172871 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75305354274 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 247.0 204.123752495 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.59375 0.468620217663 127% => OK
syllable_count: 668.7 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.7613964435 57.8364921388 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.555555556 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1111111111 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.88888888889 5.70786347227 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.269083416826 0.218282227539 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0727676724688 0.0743258471296 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0415300793153 0.0701772020484 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.13896987755 0.128457276422 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0622321325325 0.0628817314937 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.45 8.32208582834 114% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 98.500998004 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.