Scandals can be useful in that they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.
Scandals can be useful in that they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.
In political area, scandals could inform people of the government officials’ misconduct. For example, the notorious Watergate incident reveals that Richard Nixon, the former president of the United State, used government resources to wiretap his political opponents’ telephones and burgle the democratic party’s Watergate complex in Washington D.C. Had it not been for the scandals, people would have not been able to discover President Nixon’s misconduct and impeach him. Furthermore, for fear of the scandals, officials would not take advantage of the government resources for their private interests. Thus, the scandals could inform people of government officials’ misconduct and prevent officials from illegally appropriating the government resources, exerting a positive influence on the social welfare.
In business area, scandals could reveal company’s misconduct, which would benefit customers’ interests. For example, scandals expose that a Chinese dairy company, called Sanlu, added harmful substances, called melamine, to the milk it produces in order to make the milk taste better. Such misconduct has let the company generate several million dollars of illegal profits. Yet the harmful substances would be very detrimental to people’s health and would even lead to fatal diseases. Only after the scandal, did the authority notice Sanlu’s illegal behavior and severely punish the company. Furthermore, due to this scandal, other dairy companies in China have all promised to take precautions and ensure the safety of their products. Thus, the scandal has had a positive impact on the customers’ interests.
However, some people use scandals to make fame and money without any respect for privacy and they even fabricate some fictitious scandals to attract people’s attention. For example, a famous TV media in China published news that a Japanese company, called MUJI, exported foods from nuclear polluted areas near Fukushima nuclear plants in Japan to mainland China and these foods would pose a big threat to Chinese people’s health, causing a big panic in the society. However, the truth is that the headquarter of MUJI is located near the nuclear polluted area but the foods are produced elsewhere, far away from the polluted areas, fully conform to the Chinese food safety criteria, and have no threat to people’s health. Such fictitious scandals would focus people’s attention on trivial issues and have a negative influence on people’ lives. Thus, people should develop the ability of critical thinking in order to avoid these unreal scandals. Otherwise, they are very likely to be overwhelmed by the fake information and waste their valuable time.
To sum up, scandals, such as in political area and business area, can be useful in that they focus people’s attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could. Yet people should develop the ability of critical thinking in order to avoid the fictitious scandals.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 504, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...the society. However, the truth is that the headquarter of MUJI is located near the nuclear pol...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, however, so, thus, for example, such as, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 19.5258426966 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 33.0505617978 70% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 58.6224719101 99% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2681.0 2235.4752809 120% => OK
No of words: 478.0 442.535393258 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.60878661088 5.05705443957 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67581127817 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98909758948 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 215.323595506 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493723849372 0.4932671777 100% => OK
syllable_count: 826.2 704.065955056 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 6.24550561798 16% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 79.6224057662 60.3974514979 132% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.05 118.986275619 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.9 23.4991977007 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.4 5.21951772744 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 10.2758426966 39% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 16.0 5.13820224719 311% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.83258426966 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.261322377983 0.243740707755 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.112031910339 0.0831039109588 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.23147615554 0.0758088955206 305% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.321949689379 0.150359130593 214% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.360400429045 0.0667264976115 540% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.9 14.1392134831 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.8420337079 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.55 12.1639044944 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.17 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 133.0 100.480337079 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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.