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 extent 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.
In this modern technological era, we can easily communicate or express our opinions through different technological tools such as several video streaming platforms like Youtube, Several social media like Facebook, Twitter. etc. The terminology 'scandals' can be meant by action that offends moral standards, rules, and regulations. People use scandals to defame a particular person through these technological tools. The issue recommends that scandals can focus our attention on our problems in ways that no speaker or any person ever could. In my opinion, I mostly agree with this suggestion for the following reasons.
Scandals are very strong actions that could people use to criticize a person. When a large number of people can know a scandal of a person, they defame this person publicly. At this defamation, the person can be conscious and get to know what he/she offends propriety or established moral conceptions. As a result, in the future, he/she might intend not to do the scandals again. However, when only a speaker or reformer defame the person who did the scandals, he/she can ignore them and it is very easy to do for him/her. For example, the mayor of Dhaka city corporation had a scandal of corruption which is leaked and spread out through social media. The people of Dhaka city defamed and criticized the mayor for this malfeasance. Even the family members of the mayor also took the side of the people of the city. By understanding the circumstances, the mayor gave a press briefing and said that he is sorry for the scandals and in the future, he will not any kind of malfeasances.
However, while many professionals promote the notion that scandals are always good for a person to get rid of his offense, I believe the opposite should be argued given in the situation of exaggerated scandal can damage a person's life. For example, a Bangladeshi TV model did suicide a few years ago, because some private pictures of her were leaked through the internet. However, we should not take the scandals as such serious rather we should take it as more positive to know our mistakes.
The issue may not be resolved to everybody's satisfaction, but in the long run, promoting the idea that scandals are good to get focused on our own problems, will lead to the betterment of all involved.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 52, Rule ID: USE_TO_VERB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'used'?
Suggestion: used
...e very strong actions that could people use to criticize a person When a large numb...
^^^
Line 3, column 83, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...d people use to criticize a person When a large number of people can know a scandal of a person t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...he will not any kind of malfeasances However while many professionals promote the no...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 221, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'persons'' or 'person's'?
Suggestion: persons'; person's
...ion of exaggerated scandal can damage a persons life For example a Bangladeshi TV model...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, so, while, for example, kind of, such as, as a result, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.5258426966 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 58.6224719101 75% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1873.0 2235.4752809 84% => OK
No of words: 390.0 442.535393258 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.80256410256 5.05705443957 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44391917772 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65865289949 2.79657885939 95% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 215.323595506 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.510256410256 0.4932671777 103% => OK
syllable_count: 602.1 704.065955056 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 6.24550561798 0% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 1.0 20.2370786517 5% => 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: 390.0 23.0359550562 1693% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 0.0 60.3974514979 0% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 1873.0 118.986275619 1574% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 390.0 23.4991977007 1660% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 97.0 5.21951772744 1858% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 10.2758426966 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.168160287186 0.243740707755 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.168160287186 0.0831039109588 202% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0758088955206 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.105314309756 0.150359130593 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0386164909111 0.0667264976115 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 196.2 14.1392134831 1388% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: -315.91 48.8420337079 -647% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 0.0 7.92365168539 0% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 154.2 12.1743820225 1267% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 12.04 12.1639044944 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 26.54 8.38706741573 316% => Dale chall readability score is high.
difficult_words: 88.0 100.480337079 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 58.0 11.8971910112 488% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 158.0 11.2143820225 1409% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 158.0 11.7820224719 1341% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
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.