Some people claim that the goal of politics should be the pursuit of an ideal. Others argue that the goal should be finding common ground and reaching reasonable consensus.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
Politics have become a subject of broad interest and scrutiny around the world as of late. There are those who dispute the fact that politicians should pursue high ideals and those who affirm it. There are those of assert that politics should be concerned with finding common ground and those who believe that 'doing the right thing' sometimes requires traveling down the road less traveled. Although pursuing an ideal world sounds far more chivalrous, finding common ground for practical ideas is far more important in today's day and age.
The primary concern with striving to create utopia lies within the ambiguity of its definition. Pursuing an ideal is a noble cause, but reflecting on history teaches us that such actions can prove disastrous. Depending on the person attempting to pursue an ideal, the consequences can vastly vary. Right-wing politicians' perfect world looks immensely different from much more progressive leaders. Politicians are voted in office to represent the people and implementing drastic changes to fulfil one person's point of view is not a democratic solution. Because of their required loyalty to regular citizens, lawmakers across the aisle should work together in order to come to a consensus.
Furthermore, the difficulties brought about by striving to create utopia, the argument that politicians should pursue ideals is not entirely untenable. Lawmakers depend on specialists such as economists and biologists in order to lay out fully formed plans. When compromises are made to accommodate all parties involved, the entire purpose of the plan is at risk of being dismantled. Plans intended to fight climate change will be negated and undermined by the obligation to make concessions because opposing parties may not view global warming as a pressing issue. Even though opponents may fail to consider the favorable effects brought about by the several proposed laws, a democracy demands politicians work together. The main problem lies not with the politician striving for an ideal, but with the definition of what is 'good' and 'just.
In addition, lawmakers should lead by example by showing that people with different beliefs can work together properly. By attempting to find common ground, politicians signal to the regular citizens that they must work together in a respectful way in order to create a successful society. Instilling values such as respect and tolerance are part of an ideal society and can be instilled even by making concessions in other areas.
In summary, it is almost impossible to pursue ideals and implement laws that successfully impact a society without making concessions. While being idealistic is not without merit, the opposing views of what makes a country thrive are known to clash among the leaders of political parties. The definition of 'an ideal' is much too vague and ambiguous to be able justly pursue. Without working towards a reasonable consensus, any society is at risk of becoming the hostage of an absolute rules.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 424, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'sound'?
Suggestion: sound
...veled. Although pursuing an ideal world sounds far more chivalrous, finding common gro...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 230, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a respectful way" with adverb for "respectful"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...r citizens that they must work together in a respectful way in order to create a successful society...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, if, look, may, so, still, while, in addition, in summary, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 33.0505617978 54% => OK
Preposition: 76.0 58.6224719101 130% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2525.0 2235.4752809 113% => OK
No of words: 480.0 442.535393258 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26041666667 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68069463864 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74706203541 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 266.0 215.323595506 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.554166666667 0.4932671777 112% => OK
syllable_count: 784.8 704.065955056 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 6.24550561798 16% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.740449438202 135% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => 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: 29.8597857543 60.3974514979 49% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 109.782608696 118.986275619 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8695652174 23.4991977007 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.60869565217 5.21951772744 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.229965449479 0.243740707755 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0610402702005 0.0831039109588 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0387604454477 0.0758088955206 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12939094724 0.150359130593 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0315572349173 0.0667264976115 47% => 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: 13.8 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.1639044944 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.27 8.38706741573 111% => OK
difficult_words: 141.0 100.480337079 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.