Discussing controversial topics with those with contrasting views is not useful because very few people change their mind when questioned about their core beliefs.
I surely do agree with the argument stated that discussing controversial topics with someone having an opposing point of view would be a waste of time! Imagine trying to convince Hitler that the Jews are innocent.
As the prompt suggests, controversial topics should be tread upon warily when among a group of highly opinionated people, especially those with contrasting views to your point of argument. This is because people who are highly dogmatic in their views are hardly susceptible to any change. They have a very parochial outlook towards life and are arrogant enough to think they can never be wrong. In such cases, one trying to put across one's opinion on the table for consideration would be a purely futile attempt at discussing the sensitive topic. For the dogmatic person would merely scoff at the possibility of the thought of an oppposing idea.
Well, there might be exceptions to the "very few people" mentioned in the prompt, ones who are willing to listen to your perspective and consider another's opinion on a matter of discussion. One should be aware of identifying such individuals among their circle of people in order to pursue a healthy debate on any topic. These individuals might have their own set of core beliefs but are unlike those who are blindly dogmatic, refusing to even consider an opposing perspective.
Hence, in conclusion, we must realise that the conversing of sensitive topics would be a waste of one's time and effort when the person at the receiving end has already shut his ears.
- Some people believe that corporations have a responsibility to promote the wellbeing of the societies and environments in which they operate Others believe that the only responsibility of corporations provided they operate within the law is to make as muc 50
- It is no longer possible for a society to regard any living man or woman as a hero 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 compel 50
- Technology while apparently aimed to simplify our lives only makes our lives more complicated 83
- The following was written as a part of an application for a small business loan by a group of developers in the city of Monroe Jazz music is extremely popular in the city of Monroe over 100 000 people attended Monroe s annual jazz festival last summer and 68
- All college and university students would benefit from spending at least one semester studying in a foreign country Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the posit 83
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 94, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'someone' must be used with a third-person verb: 'has'.
Suggestion: has
...ssing controversial topics with someone having an opposing point of view would be a wa...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 56, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'trod', 'trodden'?
Suggestion: trod; trodden
...uggests, controversial topics should be tread upon warily when among a group of highl...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 99, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...of sensitive topics would be a waste of ones time and effort when the person at the ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, hence, if, look, so, well, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 14.8657303371 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 33.0505617978 51% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 58.6224719101 68% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 12.9106741573 23% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1286.0 2235.4752809 58% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 257.0 442.535393258 58% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.00389105058 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00390054096 4.55969084622 88% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72795670664 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 215.323595506 71% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.591439688716 0.4932671777 120% => OK
syllable_count: 412.2 704.065955056 59% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 0.0 4.99550561798 0% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
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: 10.0 20.2370786517 49% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.6950856984 60.3974514979 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.6 118.986275619 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.7 23.4991977007 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.5 5.21951772744 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 10.2758426966 29% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
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: 0.260256628149 0.243740707755 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0953142427009 0.0831039109588 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0664178174865 0.0758088955206 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.143924452384 0.150359130593 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0596187358042 0.0667264976115 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.1392134831 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.8420337079 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.1743820225 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.02 12.1639044944 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.5 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 100.480337079 59% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 94, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'someone' must be used with a third-person verb: 'has'.
Suggestion: has
...ssing controversial topics with someone having an opposing point of view would be a wa...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 56, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'trod', 'trodden'?
Suggestion: trod; trodden
...uggests, controversial topics should be tread upon warily when among a group of highl...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 99, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...of sensitive topics would be a waste of ones time and effort when the person at the ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, hence, if, look, so, well, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 14.8657303371 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 33.0505617978 51% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 58.6224719101 68% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 12.9106741573 23% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1286.0 2235.4752809 58% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 257.0 442.535393258 58% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.00389105058 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00390054096 4.55969084622 88% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72795670664 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 215.323595506 71% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.591439688716 0.4932671777 120% => OK
syllable_count: 412.2 704.065955056 59% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 0.0 4.99550561798 0% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
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: 10.0 20.2370786517 49% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.6950856984 60.3974514979 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.6 118.986275619 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.7 23.4991977007 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.5 5.21951772744 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 10.2758426966 29% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
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: 0.260256628149 0.243740707755 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0953142427009 0.0831039109588 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0664178174865 0.0758088955206 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.143924452384 0.150359130593 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0596187358042 0.0667264976115 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.1392134831 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.8420337079 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.1743820225 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.02 12.1639044944 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.5 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 100.480337079 59% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
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.