Scandals are useful because they direct our attention on problem in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.
The speaker asserts that many scandals rather than reformers prevent public figures, especially politicians from being corruptible and deteriorating by disclosing their wrongdoings. However, the full coverage of scandals turn people's attention away from significant points and undermines the societies' or the governments' authorities. Thus, I disagree partially with the speaker's position.
Admittedly, there is no trivializing that scandals are important stimulants to prevent the misconducts of political leaders through revealing their wrongs. Political leaders readily conceal their wrongdoings through abusing their power. Revealed scandals usually attract public attention to their leaders' illegal behaviors and serve to scrutinize their misconducts. The Watergate scandal is good example. Two reporters for the Washington Post disclosed the possibility that President Nixon would have been involved with eavesdropping. Though he denied strongly, the angered public required further scrutiny, and the president eventually resigned his office. As a result, disclosed scandals can play a vital role in monitoring political leaders' wrongdoings, restricting their abused power, and improving politicians' moral standard.
However, there is no denying that the excessive news coverage of scandals has also harmful effects on society. Excessive concentrations on scandals too often cause people to turn away national significant problems. In particular, mass media, which wish to draw more clients, tend to deal with trivial personal problems by only placing the priority on the superficial social issues. Moreover, the excessive disclose fo public figures' wrongdoings undermine public trust in politicians as if they all always commit immoral actions. In fact, judging from the considerable improved institutional mechanism, the rate of corruption seems to be lower than before. However, the highlighted political scandals make people regard their leaders as dishonest. Such phenomena strengthen people's political indifference, which are harmful to political stability or national security. In addition, it is difficult to expect desirable policy debate in the election campaign because politicians tend to abuse scandal as a campaign strategy. If these scandals dominate the society, our society would be unsound rather than healthy.
In conclusion, although I admit that scandals play a constructive role in society, too much disclosed coverage of scandals not only turn people's attention into trivial celebrities' privates, but also weaken public trust in government. Thus, we must take discreet advantage of scandals of the purposing preventing their disadvantages.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-10-03 | bishthemantsingh | 50 | view |
| 2019-07-29 | p30kh40 | 50 | view |
| 2019-06-13 | rammohan231220 | 66 | view |
| 2019-06-13 | rammohan231220 | 16 | view |
| 2018-11-24 | SamiraKh | 66 | view |
- Some people believe it is often necessary, even desirable for political leaders to withhold information from the public. Others believe that public has a right to be fully informed. 66
- The human mind will always be superior to machines because machines are only tools of human minds. 62
- Claim: Major policy decisions should always be left to politicians and other government experts. Reason: politicians and other government experts are more informed and thus have better judgement and perspective than do members of the general public. 66
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. 66
- Ten years ago our company had two new office buildings constructed as regional headquarters for two regions. The buildings were erected by different construction companies—Alpha and Zeta. Although the two buildings had identical floor plans, the buildin 89
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, moreover, so, then, thus, in addition, in conclusion, in fact, in particular, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 19.5258426966 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.4196629213 32% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 33.0505617978 70% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 58.6224719101 70% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2299.0 2235.4752809 103% => OK
No of words: 378.0 442.535393258 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.08201058201 5.05705443957 120% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40933352052 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02198512735 2.79657885939 108% => OK
Unique words: 228.0 215.323595506 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.603174603175 0.4932671777 122% => OK
syllable_count: 697.5 704.065955056 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.71324825 60.3974514979 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.476190476 118.986275619 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 23.4991977007 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.38095238095 5.21951772744 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 10.2758426966 29% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 16.0 5.13820224719 311% => 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: 0.160432734246 0.243740707755 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0480865269467 0.0831039109588 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0331662313448 0.0758088955206 44% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103527507763 0.150359130593 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0257357379245 0.0667264976115 39% => 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: 16.2 14.1392134831 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.28 48.8420337079 74% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.69 12.1639044944 145% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.46 8.38706741573 125% => OK
difficult_words: 142.0 100.480337079 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => 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: 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.