It is a common belief that there is no absolute objective news report and all reports inevitably contain subjective depiction based on media or news writers. It is fair to say that most people are pleased to read the news that fits their perspective and gain support from public media for their standpoints. Contradictorily I believe that it is critical to receive the views from all aspects, even the opposite side from our previous belief. I feel this way for two reasons, which I will explore in this essay.
To begin with, it is essential to jump out of our stances and consider alternatively. Most people form their perspectives from their interests and personal experiences, which means that the reaction to the same incident varies from group to group. Therefore, receiving news based on other opinions gives us a way to understand the whole situation and its effects in multiple directions. My personal experiences is a compelling illustration of this. A recent policy in my city announced that all street dustbins would be removed, and citizens have to bring their trash home. I was furious at this policy since most of my time was spent outside the home, resulting in considerable inconvenience. However, I ignored that the financial saving from the sanitary department was planned to offer the subsidy to low-income families, and it was widely supported by the people who do not have decent jobs. The policy partially sacrificed the convince but promoted the quality of life for thousands of people, and groups that stood on the opposite stance changed their altitude after they realised how beneficial this policy could be and turned to support its implementation.
Furthermore, taking the ideas from other sides of view will calm us down from being overly extreme. People who reject different standpoints are more likely to become extreme under the constant effect of an unchangeable opinion environment. I understand that many people do not will to pay their patience and time to the news that contradicts their minds, but those points, to some extent, can pull us back from going too far. Take an instance from history. Imperial Japan developed an exclusive opinion environment during World War II, and all newspapers were unbelievably promoting the braveness of soldiers, justifying the war, and even praising the massacres they committed. However, the people who doubted the fight were arrested, executed, and assassinated. People could not hear rational voices and quickly fall into zealousness, believed it was glorious to die for the emperor. This excessiveness bond the entire nation with a statement of hostility to the world and pushed this country into a greater disaster.
In conclusion, I believe that it is beneficial to receive points of view from various sides. This is because receiving information from other aspects forms people comprehensive understandings of incidents, also prevents us from sliding into irrational thinking by helping us reconsider our stances.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 929, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...t jobs. The policy partially sacrificed the convince but promoted the quality of life for th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 905, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'bonds'.
Suggestion: bonds
...die for the emperor. This excessiveness bond the entire nation with a statement of h...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, so, therefore, i feel, in conclusion, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 15.1003584229 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 9.8082437276 71% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 13.8261648746 130% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.0286738351 145% => OK
Pronoun: 57.0 43.0788530466 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 67.0 52.1666666667 128% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.0752688172 161% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2522.0 1977.66487455 128% => OK
No of words: 484.0 407.700716846 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21074380165 4.8611393121 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69041575982 4.48103885553 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88958819981 2.67179642975 108% => OK
Unique words: 278.0 212.727598566 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.574380165289 0.524837075471 109% => OK
syllable_count: 783.0 618.680645161 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 9.59856630824 115% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.51792114695 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 7.0 1.86738351254 375% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.6003584229 107% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.1344086022 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.5418835335 48.9658058833 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.636363636 100.406767564 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 20.6045352989 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 5.45110844103 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 11.8709677419 76% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.85842293907 181% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88709677419 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.13298966877 0.236089414692 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0391470586881 0.076458572812 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0321877409912 0.0737576698707 44% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.088354446623 0.150856017488 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0308333834708 0.0645574589148 48% => 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: 14.1 11.7677419355 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 58.1214874552 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 10.1575268817 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 10.9000537634 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.59 8.01818996416 120% => OK
difficult_words: 149.0 86.8835125448 171% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.002688172 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.0537634409 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.247311828 107% => 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: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.