People who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are also the most critical of it.
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.
It is reasonable that people who are dedicated to or preoccupied with specific ideologies and policies are aware of their diverse characteristics. However, the level of commitment is not always matched with the level of criticism. While some people are quite critical of the very idea they support, some others do not question the purity of such an idea. Whereas there are some individuals belonging to the former category, the majority of people are the same as the latter in my view.
Clearly, I do not deny that there are experts or ideologues who can criticize the parts of the ideas or political orientations they follow. In the field of academic research studies, it is not rare to find many pundits who admit that their research methods have limitations although they regard such methods as the best approach they can take. Many of them also agree that interdisciplinary researches are necessary to find the most proper analysis of historical incidents or scientific phenomena. For instance, as for the backgrounds of civil wars, such as those in Lebanon or Georgia, many scholars have agreed that historical, political, and economic approaches have to be considered altogether.
However, outside the academic field, such compromises are not common in most cases. For instance, we have seen a myriad of fanatic followers of political and social ideologies including Nazism, imperialism, and religious radicalism. All of them have not shown any doubt or critical review of what they believe. The militant groups based on fanatical interpretation of religions are an explicit example. ISIS members, for example, have refused to see faults or ironies of their extreme beliefs. They have not found it implausible when they justify the murder of other Muslims by claiming that even their religious fellows can be punished if those fellows do not agree with their own set of perverted religious teachings.
Furthermore, such blind supports are not limited to extremists. In contrast, it is not hard to find such phenomena in the political scenes of many countries. In many cases, the divide between two contrasting political views is quite profound. In this circumstance, the followers of the one side are not skeptical of their rightness. Even the most intelligent and logical thinkers are usually inclined to state that their ideas or policies are impeccable. Such stances are easily found among politicians supportive of specific political or economic orientations. For example, neo-liberalists do not often agree that their economic models can lead to a set of side effects, such as polarization, while communists also do not usually accept that their economic approaches can hamper development.
Given the aforementioned situations, I cannot say that the most profoundly committed people are always the most critical thinkers. / While I admit that some of them really act as critical reviewers, the majority of them are mere followers regardless of their standards.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...are the same as the latter in my view. Clearly, I do not deny that there are ex...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hes have to be considered altogether. However, outside the academic field, suc...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...set of perverted religious teachings. Furthermore, such blind supports are not...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 256, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ting political views is quite profound. In this circumstance, the followers of the...
^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...mic approaches can hamper development. Given the aforementioned situations, I c...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, furthermore, however, if, really, so, whereas, while, as for, for example, for instance, in contrast, such as, in many cases, in most cases, in my view
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.5258426966 118% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.4196629213 48% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 33.0505617978 133% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 53.0 58.6224719101 90% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2501.0 2235.4752809 112% => OK
No of words: 474.0 442.535393258 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27637130802 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66599839874 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98582134192 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 215.323595506 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.497890295359 0.4932671777 101% => OK
syllable_count: 808.2 704.065955056 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.1486808897 60.3974514979 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.739130435 118.986275619 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6086956522 23.4991977007 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.82608695652 5.21951772744 131% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.148745531191 0.243740707755 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0454231437966 0.0831039109588 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.043926661117 0.0758088955206 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0955391804865 0.150359130593 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0355172907526 0.0667264976115 53% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.1392134831 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.8420337079 87% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.43 8.38706741573 112% => OK
difficult_words: 144.0 100.480337079 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.