Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.
Through scrutiny on this statement I do admit that scandals could sometimes make a difference. Totally speaking, however, I cannot agree with the given point of view without reservation.
First of all, the statement actually conveys some reasonable opinion. Certainly, people have to acknowledge the functions of scandals. The power of scandals lies in the enormous strength of public voices. When it comes to scandals, people tend to spread them without carefully thinking over its credibility, thus the dispersing speed is quite high and the range quite large. As a consequence, almost every resident know the scandals, giving the unsubstantiated affairs a big influence on the society. This power could lead to beneficial results. For instance, a government officer is involved in the corruption secretly but is not investigated and punished for some injustice reasons, perhaps negligence of relevant department. When some suspicious plots are captured by someone, he might spread the scandals that the officer is conducting some injustice affairs. Before the scandals are known by everyone, the authority would have to do something, like checking the officer’s bank account and criticizing the irresponsible department, so as to give a response to the public. What could be even possible is that the government might conduct a thorough regulation among the officers to make the government a more justice place. This is the benefit that scandals could sometimes bring.
Whereas, the fact that scandals could possibly attract our attention to some serious issues is not the reason to believe that it is fully useful.
For one thing, most scandals focus on merely people’s private life. Due to people’s inquisitiveness deep in bone, a large proportion of scandals are related to the personal affairs such as sexual relationship of a public figure, say, a star or an officer. Actually those unimportant things are beneficial for nobody at all. Plus, the creation and the spread of scandals are liable to disobey the law due to the damage on the privacy. If spreading scandals become a prevailing social phenomenon, the society could be quite unfriendly to live in.
For another, scandals sometimes might be utilized by those harboring devil aims. If someone has personal friction with some public figure, he might spread bad remarks to anyone he meets. This could be pretty negative for the public figure. What’s more, if the situation happens in a critical point such as the president election, the election could suffer unfairness, let alone that the candidate who is slandered would face big failure.
For the mentioned two reasons I cannot regard the scandals as useful things.
To sum up, I admit the positive effect that the scandals could possibly bring. At the same time I reserve my agreement to the usefulness of the scandals.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1042, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...iticizing the irresponsible department, so as to give a response to the public. What cou...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Whereas” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...that scandals could sometimes bring. Whereas, the fact that scandals could possibly ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 33, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'could'.
Suggestion: could
...ing. Whereas, the fact that scandals could possibly attract our attention to some serious i...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 58, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'could'.
Suggestion: could
...t the positive effect that the scandals could possibly bring. At the same time I reserve my ag...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'but', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'so', 'thus', 'whereas', 'as to', 'for instance', 'such as', 'first of all', 'for one thing', 'to sum up']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.229166666667 0.240241500013 95% => OK
Verbs: 0.140151515152 0.157235817809 89% => OK
Adjectives: 0.092803030303 0.0880659088768 105% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0549242424242 0.0497285424764 110% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0265151515152 0.0444667217837 60% => OK
Prepositions: 0.106060606061 0.12292977631 86% => OK
Participles: 0.032196969697 0.0406280797675 79% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.90438519584 2.79330140395 104% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0340909090909 0.030933414821 110% => OK
Particles: 0.00189393939394 0.0016655270985 114% => OK
Determiners: 0.13446969697 0.0997080785238 135% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.032196969697 0.0249443105267 129% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0094696969697 0.0148568991511 64% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2870.0 2732.02544248 105% => OK
No of words: 457.0 452.878318584 101% => OK
Chars per words: 6.28008752735 6.0361032391 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62358717085 4.58838876751 101% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.413566739606 0.366273622748 113% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.332603938731 0.280924506359 118% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.260393873085 0.200843997647 130% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.144420131291 0.132149295362 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90438519584 2.79330140395 104% => OK
Unique words: 252.0 219.290929204 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.551422319475 0.48968727796 113% => OK
Word variations: 66.0330272469 55.4138127331 119% => OK
How many sentences: 26.0 20.6194690265 126% => OK
Sentence length: 17.5769230769 23.380412469 75% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.1720352767 59.4972553346 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.384615385 141.124799967 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5769230769 23.380412469 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.538461538462 0.674092028746 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 4.94800884956 141% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.21349557522 77% => OK
Readability: 50.83731695 51.4728631049 99% => OK
Elegance: 1.65811965812 1.64882698954 101% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.130236321678 0.391690518653 33% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0877165233883 0.123202303941 71% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0631792986308 0.077325440228 82% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.539271465465 0.547984918172 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.201686882152 0.149214159877 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0594743431975 0.161403998019 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0432729141266 0.0892212321368 49% => The sentences are too close to each other.
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.289125451456 0.385218514788 75% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0730549366548 0.0692045440612 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0972388441001 0.275328986314 35% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0372834627457 0.0653680567796 57% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.4325221239 67% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 18.0 5.30420353982 339% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.88274336283 20% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 6.0 7.22455752212 83% => OK
Negative topic words: 17.0 3.66592920354 464% => Less negative topic words wanted.
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.70907079646 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 23.0 13.5995575221 169% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.