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 Wextent 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.
It is usually disputed whether or not scandals are more useful than any speakers or reformers in the field of public affairs. The effects of scandals are tremendous without doubt. However, I fundamentally disagree with the pro-scandal perspective since the side effect may be similarly devastating and scandals also fade easily.
Admittedly, the power of scandal can eclipse any speakers in a short time, thanks for publics’ interest to gossips. They are so powerful that even the most referenced celebrities can not get rid off. One examples can be adduced from Japanese academia. The Japanese Paleolithic Forgery Incident. The forgery was made by one part-time archaeologist, Mr. Kobayashi. His ‘’discoveries’’ were so important that can not only rewrite the history of Japan, but also change the concept of human dispersion. Although some archaeologists doubted the authenticity of the discoveries, they were afraid of proclaiming as the comments can be easily be interpreted as critics out of envy. The fame of the amateur archaeologist finally collapsed as his plot was recorded by reporters. This indicates that scandals are more useful sometimes.
However, the negative influences of scandals are also as strong as their advantages, and they may sometimes vague the core issue. I would like to address the Japanese Paleolithic Forgery Incident again. Because of the scandal, scientists in Japan or even the archaeologists around the world cannot trust almost all the excavations during the late 20 century. Lots of careful excavations are ignored since contamination of fake information cannot be precluded. This may not be the purpose of the reporter who revealed the incident.
Another reason why I personally don’t believe that scandals are more useful is because they are too easily to be forgotten. Publics’ interests to the next scandals make them neglect the previous ones momentarily. For example, the #Me Too movement, which did disclose several sexual scandals among Hollywood, didn’t truly change females’ marginality at all. Furthermore, the publics’ interest and spotlight is now focusing around politics instead of females’ right . This indicates that although scandals have temporary influence, real changes cannot be done without activists’ participation.
In a nutshell, I don’t really think scandals are as useful as , or even more useful than people who stand on the frontier calling out for changes. They are powerful, but they may also have strong side effects, and they can be neglected very soon. These are the reason why I fundamentally don’t agree with the argument in the question.
- It is no longer possible for a society to regard any living man or woman as a hero. The reputation of anyone who is subjected to media scrutiny eventually be diminished. 79
- In an attempt to improve highway safety, Prunty County last year lowered its speed limit from 55 to 45 miles per hour on all county highways. But this effort has failed: the number of accidents has not decreased, and, based on reports by the highway patro 63
- It is no longer possible for a society to regard any living man or woman as a hero. 16
- he surest indicator of a great nation is represented not by the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but by the general welfare of its people. 66
- The following memorandum is from the business manager of Happy Pancake House restaurants.Butter has now been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. Only abouWt 2 percent of customers have filed 72
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 24, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
It is usually disputed whether or not scandals are more useful than any speak...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 298, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e archaeologists around the world cannot trust almost all the excavations during ...
^^
Line 9, column 352, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'century' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'centuries'.
Suggestion: centuries
... all the excavations during the late 20 century. Lots of careful excavations are ignore...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 494, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
... politics instead of females' right . This indicates that although scandals h...
^^
Line 17, column 67, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...t really think scandals are as useful as , or even more useful than people who sta...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, furthermore, however, may, really, similarly, so, then, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.5258426966 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 33.0505617978 82% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 58.6224719101 72% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 12.9106741573 46% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2293.0 2235.4752809 103% => OK
No of words: 410.0 442.535393258 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.59268292683 5.05705443957 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49982852243 4.55969084622 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.43489310872 2.79657885939 123% => OK
Unique words: 230.0 215.323595506 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.560975609756 0.4932671777 114% => OK
syllable_count: 730.8 704.065955056 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 23.0359550562 69% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.5984254989 60.3974514979 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.72 118.986275619 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.4 23.4991977007 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.48 5.21951772744 67% => 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 : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => 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: 0.152719605429 0.243740707755 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0448864101718 0.0831039109588 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0340907528379 0.0758088955206 45% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0971880118019 0.150359130593 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0308221131932 0.0667264976115 46% => 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: 13.1 14.1392134831 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 38.31 48.8420337079 78% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.85 12.1639044944 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.9 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 100.480337079 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.2143820225 75% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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.