Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.
A scandal panders to people's need for juicy gossip and rarely initiate a long and meaningful debate. It is just not a cliché. The implication of this expression can be found in numerous scandals of past and present. Road to meaningful reforms is paved with a long-drawn, pragmatic and inclusive debate rather than short-lived scandals. The prompt suggests that a scandal's ability to draw public attention is far more than that of a speaker or reformer and hence can be a useful instrument of positive change. In my opinion, I mostly disagree with this suggestion and argue that scandals, more often than not, distract attention from real issues at hand and foster unnecessary gossip among people for three reasons.
Firstly, the details of a scandal get maximum public attention rather than the issues underlying it. Media plays a big role in bringing irrelevant detail related to the scandal and in the process creates so much noise that the real issue is lost in the uproar. One may argue that scandals initiate a debate but then the debate loses focus and is rarely sustained. For example, the infamous scandal of a US president with an intern was overshadowed by the 'what' 'where' and 'how' of their relationship rather than the 'why' of it. The media was busy covering lurid details of the scandal rather than debating a suitable code of conduct and measures to enforce it.
Secondly, reforms or changes are usually brought through a long-drawn, step-wise and thought-through process of critical reasoning and wider debate. Scandals, on the other hand, create short-lived public attention and interest. Some say that scandals are a fast way of creating awareness but the 'theory of change' requires the right kind of awareness and not a faster one. For example, even a small policy decision follows a well-laid process of forming expert committees which publish working papers for public debate and incorporates inputs from various stakeholders before arriving at a decision.
Thirdly, a lot of changes or reforms do not require public opinion and sometimes the opinion of masses hinders a positive action. Some believe that public outrage in a scandal, truly represents public sentiment and acting on it is the holy grail of governance. But the logical fallacy lies in the assumption that public opinion and outrage is always correct and points in the right direction. For example, decisions on environmental issues, orthodox societal, cultural or religious norms may not be supported by masses. In other cases, certain issues are so complex that solutions supported by public sentiments might undermine its efficacy.
Finally, my argument is not against the ability of scandals to draw public attention - It is against the utility of this attention in bringing positive changes. When emotions run high, the human ability to reason goes wild. Even most pious of intentions, in a hurry, end up creating a new monster rather than killing an existing one. As someone has remarked well that "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 339, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ebate rather than short-lived scandals. The prompt suggests that a scandals ability...
^^^
Line 1, column 366, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'scandals'' or 'scandal's'?
Suggestion: scandals'; scandal's
...ed scandals. The prompt suggests that a scandals ability to draw public attention is far...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 271, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'argues'.
Suggestion: argues
...l issue is lost in the uproar. Some may argue that scandals start a debate but usuall...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 238, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'argues'.
Suggestion: argues
...public attention and interest. Some may argue that scandals are a fast way of creatin...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 140, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'argues'.
Suggestion: argues
...ses hinders a positive action. Some may argue that public outrage in a scandal truly ...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 186, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...sitive changes. When emotions run high, ones ability to reason goes for a toss. Even...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, hence, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, well, for example, in my opinion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 26.0 14.8657303371 175% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 33.0505617978 76% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 58.6224719101 101% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2529.0 2235.4752809 113% => OK
No of words: 497.0 442.535393258 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08853118712 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72159896747 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73528841493 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 261.0 215.323595506 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.525150905433 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 783.9 704.065955056 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.8777129041 60.3974514979 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.375 118.986275619 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7083333333 23.4991977007 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.70833333333 5.21951772744 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.2758426966 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 17.0 5.13820224719 331% => 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: 0.13838948247 0.243740707755 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0397442776778 0.0831039109588 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0409818632711 0.0758088955206 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0747596652748 0.150359130593 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0297015070586 0.0667264976115 45% => 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: 12.9 14.1392134831 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.1639044944 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 138.0 100.480337079 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => 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.