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
The argument regards scandals as beneficial since it more effectively draws attention from the general public as compared to other possible approaches. I strongly disagree with it for two reasons: first, most scandals are not based on truthful information but on intentional distortion of reality; second, scandals deviate the attention of the society away from what really matters; And finally, more reliable sources should be utilized to generate public awareness.
To begin with, in many cases, scandals are misinformation that merely serves to attract people’s attention and cause unnecessary panics or anger. We now live in the information age where news can rapidly disseminate and influence people’s attitudes and choices on a daily basis. This property of information dissemination is sometimes misused and can cause damages to the society. For example, in 2011 when the Fukushima nuclear accident occured, rumor had it that there would soon be a shortage of sea salt in food market due to the polluted sea water. This rumor rapidly spread across many countries near Japan and a great number of citizens rushed into the nearby supermarkets and bought a ridiculous amount of salts to prevent a perceived future shortage of salt supply, threatening social stability. It turned out that it was a false information made up by merchants who want to gain a profit from the crisis. Therefore, scandals can do more harm than good because it attracts public attention by sending out untruthful messages and can cause undesired losses.
When it comes to scandals about political figures, one may argue that it can serve as a warning messages for those in power. I agree with this claim to the extent that the scandals are based on facts and are related to public affairs. However, in most instances, scandals about governmental officials are about their private life instead of things pertinent to the rights of citizens or development of the economy. Meanwhile, in order to deal with the inflammatory scandals, politics need to greatly spare their time, as well as energy, that could have been more productively spend on their work. Therefore, if scandals play any role in influencing the climate of opinions, it does so by deviating the valuable attention away from what truly matters.
Admittedly, reforms and speaks tend to emphasize on what is credible and to avoid what is questionable. However, scandals are by no means the right way to address with this challenge. We should establish more reliable channels and platforms on which a diverse set of opinions can be more effectively communicated.
In conclusion, scandals can be more detrimental than beneficial if they are based on disinformation or have little relevance to the actual interests of the people. All stakeholders, ranging from the state, medias, and the mass, should encourage aboveboard dialogues in order to improve transparency and raise awareness of the real challenges we faced.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 96, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...re effectively draws attention from the general public as compared to other possible approache...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 97, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'message'?
Suggestion: message
...ay argue that it can serve as a warning messages for those in power. I agree with this c...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 353, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...reness of the real challenges we faced.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, may, really, second, so, therefore, well, while, for example, in conclusion, as well as, in many cases, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 33.0505617978 88% => OK
Preposition: 75.0 58.6224719101 128% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2499.0 2235.4752809 112% => OK
No of words: 476.0 442.535393258 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67091256922 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92169417833 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 271.0 215.323595506 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.569327731092 0.4932671777 115% => OK
syllable_count: 791.1 704.065955056 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.603396345 60.3974514979 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.526315789 118.986275619 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0526315789 23.4991977007 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.94736842105 5.21951772744 152% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 5.13820224719 214% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.147859531456 0.243740707755 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0449914501099 0.0831039109588 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0419831175264 0.0758088955206 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0831201306173 0.150359130593 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0321897372953 0.0667264976115 48% => 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: 15.8 14.1392134831 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.8420337079 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.47 12.1639044944 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.39 8.38706741573 112% => OK
difficult_words: 136.0 100.480337079 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 11.8971910112 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.