The given prompt shows the dilemma concerning the goals of politics. Some people support the stand point that, politics should aim for pursuit of ideal were as others argue for reasonable goals. In my opinion, goals of politics should not be restricted, and they should try pursuing the ideal.
Our goals should not be limited even before we start pursuing it. As the popular saying goes, if you aim for starts, at least you will hit moon. When our goals are limitless, there are more possibilities for growth, which we are not restricting in the first place itself. Consider the development of Singapore, at the beginning of 20th century, it was just another underdeveloped, Asian country. When most of the country's leaders in politics aimed only for fulfilling basic needs of citizens, The Singapore's politicians aimed to make the country one of the leaders in science and technology. As a result, today we see so much advancement of technical knowledge in Singapore. During the same timeline, some restrictive politicians in other countries could not even think of scientific advancements. As a result they left their countries behind, in pursuing scientific knowledge.
Some might argue that, trying ideal pursuits might not lead the pursuer to happiness at all. They might consider hypothetical situations like, if a politician of an underdeveloped country aim for a mars mission from the nation, when most of the country is yet illiterate. It is true that, in those scenarios, ideal goals will be difficult to achieve, and sometimes impossible. However, rather than waiting for the end result to be successful to become happy, one should be content with the process of trying to achieve something. Same goes with the aim of politics. In the hypothetical situation given above, the politician should lay out initial step of education to kids, that might someday fulfill his ambition of mars mission by the nation. He may not be very clear about how this education will finally lead to the mars mission someday, but he knows that this is the way to go. He should acquire his happiness with the growth that education is saying. If the same leader restricts himself even the possibility of achieving mars mission at all, he is shutting down the possibilities which may exist for the nation. And even if such possibility doesn't exist, he has nothing to lose by trying.
Some might still argue that being reasonable is practical, but such judgement of being reasonable is relative, and a lousy leader will set a lower bar. Hence, politics should aim to pursue ideal as restriction of goal hinders many possibilities of growth.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1149, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...he nation. And even if such possibility doesnt exist, he has nothing to lose by trying...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, so, still, at least, as a result, in my opinion, it is true, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.4196629213 161% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 33.0505617978 103% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 58.6224719101 101% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2198.0 2235.4752809 98% => OK
No of words: 438.0 442.535393258 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.01826484018 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57476223824 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78366216456 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 227.0 215.323595506 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.518264840183 0.4932671777 105% => OK
syllable_count: 666.0 704.065955056 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 3.10617977528 290% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.2225276565 60.3974514979 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.5652173913 118.986275619 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0434782609 23.4991977007 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.4347826087 5.21951772744 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => 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: 0.266691621181 0.243740707755 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0799066805962 0.0831039109588 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0734468702869 0.0758088955206 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.205488778743 0.150359130593 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0801469712909 0.0667264976115 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.1392134831 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.8420337079 124% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.1743820225 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.1639044944 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.93 8.38706741573 95% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 100.480337079 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.7820224719 68% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.