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.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
One major objective to have government official is to manage and deal with the public affairs to achieve common wealth and benefit for a certain region. Based on this assumption, I will argue that the statement of carrying out common will and making decision based on officials' judgements are actually not separate and independent. In fact, they both play roles to enable a more suitable and reasonable decision to achieve the ultimate goal: improve the living quality for the area they govern.
First, I claim that it is a spectrum from carrying out people's will to make officials' own decision. Furthermore, different contexts require diverse approaches from the spectrum. For example, if the topic is relevant to public benefit, such as the use of the land, or the insurance coverage plan, then it is more important to carry out people's will since the final decision will affect the majority. However, if the official does possess the profession and knowledge in certain topic, then his/her judgement can play in a higher priority in decision making. For instance, some officials come from public health domain, and is much more familiar with the diseases and treatments. Therefore, if there is an outbreak of a new disease, then their professional knowledge should be considered in prior to the will of the people since the mass may not know the better way to deal with the problem. What I would like to emphasize is that there are different suitabilities when applying the approaches between carrying out people's will and make officials' own decision.
Second, if the goal is to achieve the common wealth, then the more critical aspect is to find the middle point between people's will and the officials' judgements since there is normally no clear right or wrong decision in most of the conditions. For instance, in urban design, how many percent of the land should stay public and what types of usage should be applied under the public land. It is common that the government may want to keep more public lands for building the bounding of the community, while residents may want to privatize all the lands to make the most profit out of it. In this case, the critical thing is to find the balance between two opposite considerations to achieve the goal that is satisfying for the majority. In order to accomplish the consensus, it is for sure to blend the two approaches between carrying out people's will and officials' judgements.
In conclusion, the two approaches mentioned from the statement are not separate. Instead they play different roles based on the problems they are dealing with. Also, in practice, they normally compensate each other to achieve a final goal that reaches the consensus since there is no simply right or wrong decision in real world.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 706, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...considerations to achieve the goal that is satisfying for the majority. In order to accomplis...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...oples will and officials judgements. In conclusion, the two approaches mentione...
^^
Line 7, column 82, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Instead,
...ed from the statement are not separate. Instead they play different roles based on the ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, furthermore, however, if, may, second, so, then, therefore, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.4196629213 137% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 33.0505617978 73% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 58.6224719101 118% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2308.0 2235.4752809 103% => OK
No of words: 466.0 442.535393258 105% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95278969957 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64618479453 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6186518635 2.79657885939 94% => OK
Unique words: 214.0 215.323595506 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.459227467811 0.4932671777 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 710.1 704.065955056 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.3676192987 60.3974514979 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.222222222 118.986275619 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.8888888889 23.4991977007 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.22222222222 5.21951772744 158% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.272994507304 0.243740707755 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0929852392827 0.0831039109588 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0635979513016 0.0758088955206 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.168163609458 0.150359130593 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0647583367196 0.0667264976115 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.1392134831 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 48.8420337079 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.73 12.1639044944 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.37 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 100.480337079 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.8971910112 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.