Some people believe it is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public. Others believe that the public has a right to be fully informed.
Leaders are the ideals of a society. They are entrusted the fate of a whole nation and people residing in there. Even the trivial actions taken by leaders can bring out an unimaginable outcome. The decisions that they take, the words they speak and the deeds that they do, carry a great importance to the nation. So, it is in the part of citizens that they give such position to a responsible and well equipped personality and to judge whether a person qualifies for a specific position it is mandatory for the citizens to get information related to the leaders and their way of ruling the country.
There are many such instances where revelation of sensational information about a leader has caused their ouster from the position. For instance, many Arabian leaders were ousted from their position in Arab spring after information of their involvement in bribery and corruption was revealed. Recently, the speaker of house of Nepal had to resign from the job when it was revealed that he was involved in the rape of a woman. So, public can only keep abreast with the nature of politicians and political situation when all their information are available and they can utilize this information when picking out a proficient leader for their country in future.
True democracy doesn’t exist only when people are allowed to vote their leader. True democracy exists when people get to know all the information of potential leader and choose their leader according to the information. We have many examples where autocratic leader prevent their information from reaching to public. Moreover, in this era of technology these leaders disseminate false information among public. This has resulted in poor running of the country. The leader of North Korea, for instance, doesn’t let information about him and his regime to be given to public. Rather, misinformation and propaganda are disseminated through education, television and other medium. Consequently, people of North Korea are forced to be ruled by the totalitarian regime. Had the relevant information about the leadership been disseminated to the public, they would have taken action to ouster the leader and enjoy their freedom.
Though many proponents of the above argument might argue that some sensational information might bring public outcry and even horrific movements but history reflects that such movement starts when most of the people, based on the information, think that they have to take action. For example, lately after it was revealed through secret sources that one of the speakers of the parliament of Nepal had knowingly murdered some men of a village brutally, people in Nepal took to the streets and demanded his ouster. Though the protest was violent, what good did it do was a strong warning against such crimes in the future and ouster of such pathetic leader. Finally, people in this century possess the right to information and with regard to that, every information, how much ever sensitive it might be, should be provided to public.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 649, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...t a proficient leader for their country in future. True democracy doesn't exis...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, finally, if, moreover, so, well, for example, for instance, with regard to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 33.0505617978 130% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 74.0 58.6224719101 126% => OK
Nominalization: 31.0 12.9106741573 240% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2547.0 2235.4752809 114% => OK
No of words: 496.0 442.535393258 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13508064516 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71922212354 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73777851395 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 247.0 215.323595506 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.497983870968 0.4932671777 101% => OK
syllable_count: 801.0 704.065955056 114% => 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: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.9542214397 60.3974514979 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.772727273 118.986275619 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5454545455 23.4991977007 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.22727272727 5.21951772744 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
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: 0.264010461392 0.243740707755 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0815370542274 0.0831039109588 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0514632335899 0.0758088955206 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.161003189711 0.150359130593 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0536851194343 0.0667264976115 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.1392134831 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.83 12.1639044944 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.87 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 130.0 100.480337079 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => 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.