Some people believe that government officials must carry out the will of the people they serve. Others believe that officials should base their decisions on their own judgment.
Government officials have a wide range of jobs - there are legislative politicians, judges, regulation officials, etc. Some of these roles should rely more on the will of the people they serve, and others should more base their decisions on their own judgement.
In the United States, the House of Representatives is meant to represent the will of the people, therefore they have a duty to carry out the wishes of their constituents. They should not put their party or their want for power above that will. That is not to say that they should not advocate for their positions - they should freely and openly share those positions with their constituents, so that the voters can decide if they are adequately represented at each election.
On the other hand, some government officials are not elected and therfore should not always go with the will of the people. For intance, federal judges are appointed and confirmed and, theoretically, should know more about the law than the average citizen. They should absolutely bring their extra knowledge into their decision making process. This will not always align with what the majority of the people want. Another example would be government officials appointed to positions that regulate the financial world and control environmental regulations. These people again, theoretically, are experts in their fields and therefore know more about these industries than the average person, and are better suited to make decisions based on their own judgement.
Appointed officials should rely on their own judgement when they make decisions. whereas elected officials should more heavily consider their constituents wishes.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 82, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Whereas
...own judgement when they make decisions. whereas elected officials should more heavily c...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 82, 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.
...own judgement when they make decisions. whereas elected officials should more heavily c...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, so, therefore, whereas, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.5258426966 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.4196629213 137% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.3162921348 53% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 58.6224719101 49% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1408.0 2235.4752809 63% => OK
No of words: 263.0 442.535393258 59% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.3536121673 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.02706775958 4.55969084622 88% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74444712684 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 141.0 215.323595506 65% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.536121673004 0.4932671777 109% => OK
syllable_count: 432.9 704.065955056 61% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 20.2370786517 64% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.0872909232 60.3974514979 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.307692308 118.986275619 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2307692308 23.4991977007 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.46153846154 5.21951772744 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => 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 : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.453614640194 0.243740707755 186% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.172942770288 0.0831039109588 208% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0891037839389 0.0758088955206 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.306329537539 0.150359130593 204% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0550512184634 0.0667264976115 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.1392134831 98% => OK
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: 13.75 12.1639044944 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.59 8.38706741573 102% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 100.480337079 66% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
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.