The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority.
Throughout the history it is often that a certain group of people makes decision for the whole society. The system has been in place for the benevolence of the whole community. It might happen that few decisions may affect some people poorly or may seem counterintuitive at first. But the intention should be to always benefit the majority the community in the long run. The statement asserts that the society should question those in authority for their own well-being but I must argue that it only holds true in certain situation. For example, if students in preliminary schools or employees in factories start to question the principal or the supervisor it will become disruptive to the normal workflow. On the other hand, in scientific communities, questioning the laid down principles may bring forth new or different insight on the subject which can aid in advancing technologies to improve the productivity of the society.
Teenagers are often prone to capricious behavior and lashing out at their parents and teachers as they deal with the changes in their own self. They often get into conflict as they struggle for their own independence and freedom. The supervision and constraints are often necessary for their own well-being. Without respecting the authority of their parents and instructor, they might develop behavioral problems that might affect them negatively in the long run. To illustrate, at adolescent age, they are more likely to experiment with drugs and sex and often fall prey to bad practices. They might become drug addicted or may contact sexually transmitted diseases which may lead to serious personal and social problems. Meanwhile, in terms of academics, it is often unwise to challenge the relatively well-established facts and theories in textbooks. Challenging teachers in academic matters will only deter the productivity of the student itself.
However, in scientific community it is always welcome to question the laid down principles or suggest a different approach. One of the distinguishing identity of a scientific group is that they are always open to the possibility that their established theories may be inaccurate or plain wrong. Throughout their peer-reviewed research, the scientists have to answer any counter argument against their own theories with logical answers that satisfy their findings. Other researchers will challenge the theory if they get inconsistent results by replicating the paper. This whole process of questioning propositions and principles are necessary to ensure validity of knowledge and inflow of new ideas in field of ever growing science and technology which ultimately benefits the society.
In conclusion, as it is known that well-being of society is closely related to education, business and research, and therefore, challenging the authority in education and business is ill-advised. However, it is significant to question the established principles in research to advance the development of science and technology.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, so, therefore, well, while, for example, in conclusion, in fact, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.4196629213 137% => OK
Conjunction : 25.0 14.8657303371 168% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 33.0505617978 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 66.0 58.6224719101 113% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2542.0 2235.4752809 114% => OK
No of words: 467.0 442.535393258 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.44325481799 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64867537961 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07341912406 2.79657885939 110% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 215.323595506 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.505353319058 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 774.9 704.065955056 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.38483146067 228% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.5636373345 60.3974514979 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.545454545 118.986275619 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2272727273 23.4991977007 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.09090909091 5.21951772744 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.118703793271 0.243740707755 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0365772801793 0.0831039109588 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0426527043589 0.0758088955206 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0874854392893 0.150359130593 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0533235322094 0.0667264976115 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.1392134831 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.8420337079 85% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.27 12.1639044944 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.24 8.38706741573 110% => OK
difficult_words: 135.0 100.480337079 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => 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: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.