The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
People can enhance the status of a society by the help of questioning its authorities. This claim seems to be true in many aspects. There are some complexities and considerations in this process, though. Different aspects of this issue will be reviewed in the following article.
To begin with, the nature of this questioning methods should be defined in an organized framework. Then, this right must be followed by standard procedures through organizations such as NGOs. These actions can guarantee the accuracy and effectiveness of asking people in charge about their intentions and actions. Conversely, if anyone tries to pursue this goal individually, there will be a chaos in the society instead of the assumed improved situation. On the other hand, authorities should feel responsible in terms of giving clear and valid information to the public. If powerful people lack this conviction, no matter how hard the people try to achieve an answer from them, this whole process would be a futile effort. So, formal procedures and moral grounds are two inseparable parts of a good plan in order to facilitate the flow of information between people in high power positions and ordinary people.
Additionally, following this objective can be beneficial in preventing many other disasters. Dictatorship, for instance, is a direct result of lack of questioning and answering in a vivid way from different levels of a society. Likewise, the process of questioning can eliminate high degrees of debauchery in the government and other parts of a society. If people in power feel they are under the watch of the society, they will take a deep breath before making a decision, taking an action, etc. This hesitation stems from this fact that they are aware of consequences of their behavior. So, questions from people are helpful in several aspects.
Moreover, social benefits from the suggested policy are tremendous. For example, there is an imaginary wall between people in lower positions and people in charge. Although this wall seems to be impermeable, the questions from society can break it apart gradually. The nature of this wall will transform from stone to glass. In addition, everyone in the society feels to be powerful and responsible for his future. While in irresponsible regimes the voice of opposites is suppressed, in a healthy society, thanks to clear question and answer between people and authorities, dissenters can speak up loudly.
Admittedly, the mentioned benefits are highly dependent on several factors, some of which are vital. Suggested public organizations should represent all point of views within a society. The relation of these institutions with the people in charge should be as clear as possible. If these conditions lack, the expected results could not be obtained. Furthermore, some matters are classified and directly related to security of a nation. Talking about these issues should be done with the most caution. So, improving the status of a society has several facets, some of which are conflicting sometimes.
To sum up, the right of questioning authorities has several positive reflections. Of course, some conditions should be provided in order to achieve this highly favored goal. This policy is related to both people and authorities, though.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 178, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a vivid way" with adverb for "vivid"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...lt of lack of questioning and answering in a vivid way from different levels of a society. Lik...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, furthermore, if, likewise, moreover, so, then, while, for example, for instance, in addition, of course, such as, talking about, to begin with, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.5258426966 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.4196629213 153% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 11.3162921348 27% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 29.0 33.0505617978 88% => OK
Preposition: 89.0 58.6224719101 152% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2775.0 2235.4752809 124% => OK
No of words: 527.0 442.535393258 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26565464896 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79129216042 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93078779839 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 260.0 215.323595506 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493358633776 0.4932671777 100% => OK
syllable_count: 863.1 704.065955056 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 32.0 20.2370786517 158% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 23.0359550562 69% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.9593054713 60.3974514979 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.71875 118.986275619 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.46875 23.4991977007 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.75 5.21951772744 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.163091002071 0.243740707755 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0482600526571 0.0831039109588 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0374047739129 0.0758088955206 49% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0967813091857 0.150359130593 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.019062389765 0.0667264976115 29% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 14.1392134831 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.8420337079 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.1743820225 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.99 12.1639044944 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 133.0 100.480337079 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.2143820225 75% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.