Although Some might argue that scandals can be useful, since they reveal certain degree of truth about one person, it can be helpful for people to evaluate things that matter; However, any judgement that are based on scandals may be also dangerous and invalid. Before getting in conclusion, there are several traps in this assertion that scandals are useful have to be further considered.
First of all, scandals are highly possible to be fabricated. In a competitive relation, scandals can be applied as a weapon to hurt another's reputation and distract people's attention to trivial things that do not actually matter. For example, in a political campaign, there are usually candidates try to damage their competitors by spreading unfounded scandals through social media. Many of those scandals are latter confirmed to be fake, while they have already demonstrated immense effect during the campaign.
Indeed, some of those scandals might be true, and by revealing them to the public, one can help people to focus on issues that not yet been noticed. Nevertheless, even though scandals can be true in certain degree, they are still not the ideal, or fulfill, references to measure a person. For example, one might used to be a drug addict, while after years of struggling finally abstain drugs and become sober. If people only focus on the truth that he was a user, then they will miss so much good qualities of him, which is not helpful at all.
In conclusion, I argue that scandals are not actually useful in any situation, since they are too easy to be intentionally manipulated and fabricated. As people who judge, we should measure certain person on their presence but not some kind of unfounded past rumors.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, still, then, while, for example, in conclusion, kind of, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.5258426966 118% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 33.0505617978 73% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 58.6224719101 70% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1437.0 2235.4752809 64% => OK
No of words: 287.0 442.535393258 65% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.00696864111 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11595363751 4.55969084622 90% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63165636422 2.79657885939 94% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 215.323595506 78% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.585365853659 0.4932671777 119% => OK
syllable_count: 450.9 704.065955056 64% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 0.0 4.99550561798 0% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 3.10617977528 290% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 20.2370786517 59% => 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: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.0138866975 60.3974514979 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.75 118.986275619 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.9166666667 23.4991977007 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.8333333333 5.21951772744 227% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 10.2758426966 39% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.83258426966 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.151365522891 0.243740707755 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.061797877733 0.0831039109588 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.026701655079 0.0758088955206 35% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0978045151501 0.150359130593 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0192214273732 0.0667264976115 29% => 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: 14.1 14.1392134831 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.8420337079 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.1639044944 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.41 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 100.480337079 66% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => 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.