Politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals.
I completely agree with the given statement stating ‘Politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals’. In consolidation of my view, I will discuss why politicians in a democracy need to pursue a common ground.
Politicians in a democracy are essentially elected representatives of the people of their constituency. They are responsible for the welfare of the constituency. Let us consider a constituency of the size of an Indian Metropolitan ‘Hyderabad’. Hyderabad is a global city with exceptional exports pertaining to the Information Technology Industry. The diverse cultures of people that the industry attracts is phenomenal.
Politicians need to take decisions satisfying everyone in the constituency and not just favouring a particular group of people. It is necessary to pursue a reasonable consensus rather than having difficult ideals which might not benefit everyone.
I would like to cite another example elucidating why politicians need to consider the consensus. The Indian Parliament passes a bill only when a majority is achieved among the Members of the Parliament. Despite the noble intentions behind idealistic ideas and schemes of a few politicians, it is always difficult to score a majority to pass a bill. This is precisely the reason why the Lokpal bill, took so much time to be accepted.
A consensus again does not mean that it is always correct and wise. Politicians must decide judiciously whether a consensus is right or wrong. Being representatives of the people, the politicians should not set unachievable goals just for the sake of development. They should set pragmatic goals satisfying the common needs and not waste time on the unnecessary things.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, so
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.5258426966 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 14.8657303371 40% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 11.3162921348 35% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 33.0505617978 42% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 58.6224719101 55% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 6.0 12.9106741573 46% => More nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1486.0 2235.4752809 66% => OK
No of words: 270.0 442.535393258 61% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.5037037037 5.05705443957 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05360046442 4.55969084622 89% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.49446750665 2.79657885939 125% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 215.323595506 72% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.574074074074 0.4932671777 116% => OK
syllable_count: 478.8 704.065955056 68% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.740449438202 0% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 23.0359550562 65% => OK
Sentence length SD: 25.9571112857 60.3974514979 43% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 87.4117647059 118.986275619 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.8823529412 23.4991977007 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.352941176471 5.21951772744 7% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.36844078123 0.243740707755 151% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0951808296802 0.0831039109588 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.128445475009 0.0758088955206 169% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.203751571647 0.150359130593 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.176960827509 0.0667264976115 265% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.1392134831 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 39.33 48.8420337079 81% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.32 12.1639044944 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.65 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 100.480337079 73% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.2143820225 71% => Gunning_fog is low.
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.