Under some circumstances, scandals can focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could, and scandals are easier to catch public’s attention and shed light on some issues that would be controversial and worth attention. Such as a few years ago, scandals of milk are exposure in China. Public pay so more attention on the milk scandals and take more pressure on government that government has to deal with the problems as soon as possible. In addition, scandals can induce people’s attention to something that some people are not willing to reveal. For instance, corruption is usually in China a few years ago, and public barely have ability to appeal them. But, scandals would direct public attention on the corruption once they are founded. And government has to address the relevant government’s officials in order to placate public. In this case, scandals are really useful for public people.
However, revealing scandals could shake people’s confidence about the social just and fair if it becomes a way to satisfy public curiously, follow famous people’s life and have rumor on government’s policy. For example, there is an event about the Red Cross in China. Red Cross’s officials spend people’s contribution on a girl named Meimei Guo who wastes money on cars, houses, clothing and beauty. It is good to reveal the scandals, but at that time, it seems like too commend to make people lost their confidence on the charitable. These issue has weaken the government’s creditable and erosions people’s trust and safe about the charitable agency. In this way, revealing scandals is really benefit for solving problems or just has influence in order to make topics.
In addition, scandals don’t work in some ways. Scandals catalyze people direct some trivial or unrelated issues that could mislead the public. For instance, as we all know the sexual about the government’s officials. Public would disturb their work or deny their merit even though they have big achievements on the social or they are the best person for the situation for now because of their indiscretion behavior. These scandals could tarnish their images and achievements, and then they have to give up their work due to the public pressure and in order to placate public people. In this situation, it seems like removing a bad guy from the government while it also takes people big achievements.
It is no reasonable and cogent when people start to reveal issues from scandals. Social must have its own system to balance. Maybe it means that the social system has been shaken when utilizing scandals, especially for laws and legal system, and the social must be chaos. Thus, how to maintain the original social work and its balance should be the issues that public takes care.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 493, Rule ID: TOO_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'to commend'?
Suggestion: to commend
...andals, but at that time, it seems like too commend to make people lost their confidence on...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 577, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'weakened'.
Suggestion: weakened
...ence on the charitable. These issue has weaken the government's creditable and er...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 730, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'benefited', 'benefitted'.
Suggestion: benefited; benefitted
... this way, revealing scandals is really benefit for solving problems or just has influe...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 7, Rule ID: IT_IS_NO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'not' or 'now'?
Suggestion: not; now
...takes people big achievements. It is no reasonable and cogent when people start...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, really, so, then, thus, while, as to, for example, for instance, in addition, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 14.8657303371 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 33.0505617978 106% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 58.6224719101 92% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 12.9106741573 225% => Less nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2387.0 2235.4752809 107% => OK
No of words: 463.0 442.535393258 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1555075594 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63868890866 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88165956701 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 215.323595506 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.494600431965 0.4932671777 100% => OK
syllable_count: 722.7 704.065955056 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.740449438202 135% => OK
Article: 0.0 4.99550561798 0% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.4028201107 60.3974514979 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.4583333333 118.986275619 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2916666667 23.4991977007 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.75 5.21951772744 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 5.13820224719 234% => 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: 0.126094739621 0.243740707755 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0393912112189 0.0831039109588 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0528427315999 0.0758088955206 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0772362569013 0.150359130593 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0582195616899 0.0667264976115 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.1392134831 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.8420337079 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.1639044944 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.02 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 100.480337079 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.