TPO19.
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
In order to be well-informed, a person must get information from many different news resources.
During the last decades, the digital revolution has altered several facets of the news industry and its means for delivering news to the general public. In fact, today, people can reach not only the latest local news but also the international one in just a second thanks to the high-speed internet. However, this advancement like other developments has brought controversial issues to societies such as numerous news sources which are unreliable. One of the heated debates in this realm is that whether one should get information from different news resources to become well-informed. Although there might be some counterexamples about this claim, deeply deliberating over the issue, I would argue that people should obtain information from as many as different resources they can to become sure. Following reasons will further elaborate on this issue.
The most prominent point to be mentioned is that, as a rule, if we want to be well-informed about a particular subject we should approach that topic from different angles. Apart from that, the majority of news agencies all around the world talk about an issue in a biased way, and they can intentionally or even unintentionally change the way readers think. As a result, it is strongly recommended to read or hear about an event from different news resources in order to analyze it objectively. Take my own experience as an example which can shed some light on this issue. A few months ago, I read about a demonstration which was held by Brazilian students against the price increase, even worse; the online news agency added about ten people were killed by the policemen at this protest. Fortunately, I asked my Brazilian friend about this event and he rejected these number of dead people at all. Finally, I have discovered that this specific news resource has had a long-lasting problem with the president of Brazil.
The second rationale behind my idea is rooted in the fact that some news resources are more powerful than others. In fact, popular news resources have authority to get even secret information about different topics ranging from international political events to celebrities' personal life. Thus, sometimes, we can get a broader range of knowledge and information from another source of news compared to our local news media. By way of illustration, whenever I cannot get what I am searching for it among our local news resources, I can easily find them in detail through American or European news agencies such as CNN or BBC.
To wrap it up, based on the ideas which were presented above, I believe that we can take advantage of today's plentiful resources of news to judge recent events from different aspects, and obtain them in more detail. However, an important issue that must be mentioned is that we cannot use this opinion as a prescription for everyone and more studies are required to answer this question precisely.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 138, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...nd its means for delivering news to the general public. In fact, today, people can reach not o...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 261, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a biased way" with adverb for "biased"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...ll around the world talk about an issue in a biased way, and they can intentionally or even uni...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 387, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'recommended reading'.
Suggestion: recommended reading
...ders think. As a result, it is strongly recommended to read or hear about an event from different n...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, second, so, thus, well, apart from, in fact, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 15.1003584229 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 9.8082437276 163% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 13.8261648746 80% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.0286738351 127% => OK
Pronoun: 49.0 43.0788530466 114% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 52.1666666667 132% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.0752688172 136% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2431.0 1977.66487455 123% => OK
No of words: 482.0 407.700716846 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04356846473 4.8611393121 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68556276237 4.48103885553 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82877483736 2.67179642975 106% => OK
Unique words: 262.0 212.727598566 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.54356846473 0.524837075471 104% => OK
syllable_count: 771.3 618.680645161 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 9.59856630824 94% => OK
Article: 7.0 3.08781362007 227% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 5.0 3.51792114695 142% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.6003584229 92% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 20.1344086022 124% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 44.0016368368 48.9658058833 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.947368421 100.406767564 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.3684210526 20.6045352989 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.15789473684 5.45110844103 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 11.8709677419 76% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.88709677419 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.235714376954 0.236089414692 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0759274279099 0.076458572812 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0596801367894 0.0737576698707 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.145057003986 0.150856017488 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.044629218159 0.0645574589148 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 11.7677419355 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 58.1214874552 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 10.1575268817 128% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.25 10.9000537634 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.77 8.01818996416 109% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 86.8835125448 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.002688172 120% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.0537634409 119% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.247311828 117% => 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.