Scandals – whether in politics, academia or other areas – can be useful. They focus our attention on problems in way that no speaker or reformer ever could
By human nature, we are delighted by scandals or rather, bizarre incidents that differ from our mundane lives. In general, the more unbelievable the better. While I believe scandals can grasp our attention like no other, I am skeptical about how scandals can be useful in fields like politics or the academia.
Ever since the boom of the internet 30 years ago, we have been living in world filled with an abundance of information. In response to this excessive flush of information, we have trained our minds to attend only the most catching ones. Among these information, scandals are infinitely more engaging than traditional passages or speeches on problems – which seem just like the one we had a glimpse about on Wikipedia or Youtube the other day. This may be why scandals can focus our attention so strongly, and may potentially serve as a useful medium to deliver information.
It is true that scandals can be a powerful medium to deliver information, but the information delivered by scandals are rarely meaningful, let alone useful. Surely a scandal in the politics may provide some use, it sheds new light to the possible corrupted moral or ethics of the candidate, and allows voters a better judgment of who to vote for. However, this is clearly not the case in fields such as sciences and medicine. Can scandals such as adulteries or even fake publications diminish the importance or impacts of certain breakthroughs? Will you be unwillingly to get your operation by the renowned surgeon just because he was involved in a scandal? Scandals in these fields simply does not affect our views or choices, so they effectively are useless information to us.
Furthermore, in order to hook the attention of the readers, scandals are often so embellished that it is hard to glean useful information from it, the original meanings may even have been modified. The level of attentiveness required to discern the true meaning behind the scandal may not be suffice for the average reader only interested in the superficial and catchy titles. It would then seem pointless to use scandals as a way to deliver information, as they may be able to grasp the attention of the reader, but fail to sustain a continued engagement.
In conclusion, admittedly scandals can engage our attention in ways no other means can, they nevertheless lack the ability to sustain a continued engagement. This makes scandal a less useful tool for information delivering, especially information that requires more than an ephemeral attention span. Furthermore, due to the inherent nature of scandals, it seems unlikely that they can serve as a medium for useful information on problems.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 243, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this information' or 'these informations'?
Suggestion: this information; these informations
...tend only the most catching ones. Among these information, scandals are infinitely more engaging ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 327, Rule ID: ABOUT_WHO_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'of whom to'?
Suggestion: of whom to
...te, and allows voters a better judgment of who to vote for. However, this is clearly not ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, then, while, in conclusion, in general, such as, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 37.0 33.0505617978 112% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 58.6224719101 97% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 12.9106741573 186% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2228.0 2235.4752809 100% => OK
No of words: 443.0 442.535393258 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02934537246 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58776254615 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91372547203 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 235.0 215.323595506 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.530474040632 0.4932671777 108% => OK
syllable_count: 719.1 704.065955056 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.9571792959 60.3974514979 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.263157895 118.986275619 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.3157894737 23.4991977007 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.94736842105 5.21951772744 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.29744123949 0.243740707755 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.091247196939 0.0831039109588 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0798467319203 0.0758088955206 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.17734438122 0.150359130593 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0397757805713 0.0667264976115 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.8420337079 99% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.19 12.1639044944 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.91 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 100.480337079 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.