Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position
A scandal is defined as an action or event which is regarded as morally or legally wrong and causes public outrage. Scandals are the real events which demonstrate the flaws in the status quo of the economical, political (and or) technological systems involved, demanding an immediate action. Speakers and the reformers on the other hand, address issues in an abstract sense, often eyeing a long term goal and may or may not goad public into causing a furore. Scandals and public speaking and reformation talks are both persuasive in nature, however, scandals often result in a rapid transformation of society in its various spheres.
Scandals cause public outrage, immediately provoking the public, this in turn puts sudden pressure on the scandalous systems involved and forcing them to take an immediate action to mitigate public backlash. Current example of such a scandal is the possibility of meddling of Russians in the electoral process for the United States presidency. It has highlighted the conflict of interests of Mr. Donald Trump and his ties with the Russians. This scandal has led to many immediate resignations, has possibly forced the canning of the FBI director. This has led to public furore and has asked for an immediate enquiry into the matter. Efficacy of public speaking on the other hand in such a situation, with the lack of real evidences, is at best debatable.
Scandals owing to their reality, often changes the perception of general public about the systems involved, making public wary of every move of the system. Public speaking and promises of reformation alone cannot, on the other hand, bring about this sudden shift in the perception of masses. In nutshell, ‘a picture is worth thousand words’, here that ‘picture’ is the scandal and the ‘words’ are those uttered by the public speakers. An example in this direction is that of the president of South Africa, who is charged with more than 700 cases related with corruption and abuse of the public money, a scandal has revealed him using public funds for his own benefits, building lavish house with all modern amenities. This scandal has resulted in protests and tarnished the public image of the African national congress party. Public speaking and talks about reformations are more of an aftermath reactions in such cases.
Scandals leave the practical flaws in the system out in the open for people to demand immediate actions. 2G scams in India have under public pressure, forced the government to perform thorough auditing of the spectrum allocation process. Similarly, the 2010 Commonwealth games scandal in Delhi, India has demanded thorough investigations in the sports infrastructure fund allocation and auditing of its transparent usage. Had 2G spectrum and Commonwealth games fund allocation and usage scandals not exposed by the media, these events would have gone unnoticed, keeping the ‘apparent’ integrity of the systems impeccable. These scandals highlighted the channels in the government systems through which corruption can seep in.
However, one has to always guard himself against the authenticity of the news of about scandals. Media is a revolutionizing power when used without self-interests, otherwise, it can also be misused by a group of people to calumniate their opponents, or even for the sake of improving popularity of their media outlet for generating higher revenues. Such cases demand incisiveness of the general public. Public should therefore have their own independent judgment about the validity of a publicized issue and should not give in to the populism. Further, the public speaking and promises of reformations come with their own merits, providing people with various views on how the problems can be solved in the long term, even if they do not prompt public to take immediate actions. Reformers and public speakers emphasis an incremental approach to the problem solving as opposed to the scandals which prompts people to take immediate action.
I would like to conclude that the scandals possess a compulsive nature, prompting people to react immediately. Scandals by their very pragmatic nature, put flaws of the compromised system out in open for general public to see and react. They also have the efficacy to change the perception of people about a system in a short time-span, which public speaking and reformers dream about, but may or may not be able to achieve, subject to their persuasiveness. However, before taking any action, people should always invest themselves in establishing the authenticity of a scandal.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 66, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...eality, often changes the perception of general public about the systems involved, making publ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 346, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'sports'' or 'sport's'?
Suggestion: sports'; sport's
...demanded thorough investigations in the sports infrastructure fund allocation and audi...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 388, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
.... Such cases demand incisiveness of the general public. Public should therefore have their own...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 801, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'speakers'' or 'speaker's'?
Suggestion: speakers'; speaker's
...immediate actions. Reformers and public speakers emphasis an incremental approach to the...
^^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 205, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
... the compromised system out in open for general public to see and react. They also have the ef...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, similarly, so, then, therefore, as to, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 29.0 14.8657303371 195% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 113.0 58.6224719101 193% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3878.0 2235.4752809 173% => OK
No of words: 734.0 442.535393258 166% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.28337874659 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.20503932437 4.55969084622 114% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95004904856 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 346.0 215.323595506 161% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.471389645777 0.4932671777 96% => OK
syllable_count: 1200.6 704.065955056 171% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.740449438202 135% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 31.0 20.2370786517 153% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.6183715835 60.3974514979 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.096774194 118.986275619 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.6774193548 23.4991977007 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.74193548387 5.21951772744 53% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 22.0 5.13820224719 428% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.112858655239 0.243740707755 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.036191644396 0.0831039109588 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0327945954561 0.0758088955206 43% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.071757718067 0.150359130593 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0230666033761 0.0667264976115 35% => 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: 15.3 14.1392134831 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.8420337079 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.64 12.1639044944 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.12 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 202.0 100.480337079 201% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.