Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
It is more important to read or watch news presented by people whose views are different from your own than it is to read or watch news presented by those whose views are similar to your own.
Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer
In the recent years the credibility of mainstream media has been under immense scrutiny. There are news outlets that have certain agenda and are only pursuing that aspect which serves their point of view. This has resulted in a domino effect where opposing news outlets are going further to the end of their political spectrum to prove the points that they see as true. Hence, one question arises from this phenomenon: should one listen to the news that supports their point of view or he should listen to those that oppose it. In my opinion, listening to opposing news sources is better for the following reasons.
There is a phenomenon that have long been discovered known as "tunnel vision". This phenomenon suggests that people remain fixated on a notion and cannot find solutions to problems and can only circumvent this problem by opting for a different perspective. When the news about certain policies or events emmerge, news outlets try to control the narrative by pushing their own agenda. In order to better understand those events, one should have access to sources that produces details that are seperate from his own to prevent the "tunnel vision". When policies are introduced, it might benefit some people who have a certain political view. Thus, one should pay attention to others with different perspectives to decide whether it can be good for the whole community but only to those with whom he agrees.
Secondly, social media is now the dominant source of news. People do not tune into TV to watch news but simply follow certain outlets on social media and get informed in that manner. The social media companies have constructed algorithms that multiplies the contents that one likes or uses more time to watch. They produce personality profiles for consumers and expose them to content that complies with their personality and consequently their political views. As a result, people get constantly bombarded by similar contents. This can result in not getting informed with other news that we might not value but are equally or even more important. Thus, in order to have access to different outlets and perspectives one should delibrately and constantly try to access news that opposses their preconcieved notions.
All in all, in this modern world we are bombarded with options and it is even important when it comes to news. By using our phones we can scroll through news quite effortlessly from around the world. Yet it is important if we consume content or news that are not from an outlet that leans towards our political views. Journalism cannot unfortunately be biased. Hence, we should listen to different journalists but mostly to those whom we might oppose but make our own minds.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, hence, if, second, secondly, so, thus, as a result, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 15.1003584229 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 9.8082437276 153% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 13.8261648746 145% => OK
Relative clauses : 25.0 11.0286738351 227% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 56.0 43.0788530466 130% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 56.0 52.1666666667 107% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 8.0752688172 25% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2289.0 1977.66487455 116% => OK
No of words: 454.0 407.700716846 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04185022026 4.8611393121 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61598047577 4.48103885553 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61682630125 2.67179642975 98% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 212.727598566 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.486784140969 0.524837075471 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 702.9 618.680645161 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 9.59856630824 63% => OK
Article: 1.0 3.08781362007 32% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.51792114695 85% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.6003584229 112% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.1344086022 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.4911205618 48.9658058833 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.5217391304 100.406767564 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.7391304348 20.6045352989 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.65217391304 5.45110844103 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 11.8709677419 118% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.85842293907 52% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.88709677419 143% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.20920415942 0.236089414692 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0628868316866 0.076458572812 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0358008048258 0.0737576698707 49% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.130556774715 0.150856017488 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0156557512439 0.0645574589148 24% => 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: 12.2 11.7677419355 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 58.1214874552 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 10.1575268817 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 10.9000537634 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.2 8.01818996416 102% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 86.8835125448 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.002688172 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.0537634409 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.247311828 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 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: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.