Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.
Are there any scenarios where scandals are also perceived as useful? While some critics, including author of given argument, might argue that scandals are useful, for they focus our attention on problems in a way that no reformer - or advocate - ever could, its not the final truth. As far as I am concerned, I won't deny the some rare positive, and change bringing, efficacy of the scandals, yet its everything but absolute: in some cases they are ruinous to the society to boot.
Those critics who would argue that scandals are efficacious might prefer to give example of Medical education in Nepal. On account of high profit in medical education, many private medical colleges, together with some politicians, started many unethical activities: for example, they started selling student quotas to the wealthier - rather than to the talents. Clearly, Dr. Gobinda KC, senior orthopaedic surgeon of TU teaching hospital, commenced his fast-unto-death protest against these scandals. Finally, he enjoyed huge support from journalists, social media enthusiasts, and hoi polloi. Then what? Government agreed with Dr. KC to amend some fallacious points of Medical Education Act to promote merit-based medical education. These days, due to the frequent protests of Dr. KC, there happen many discussions - in private and public spheres - regarding medical education. Therefore, some good news are going to come up, isn't it? Up to this point, I also agree with critics, yet my reservation is scandals may not always be noteful.
In contrast, Scandals are scandals; by definition, scandals are activities for which one deserves no respect. Then there is no absolute chance for them to be useful: sometimes they are ruinous too. Lokman Singh Karki, the chief commissioner of Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority, was found to be involved in several scandals in recent days. Many people raised their voice; nobody, including the government, heard public, however. Finally, as Karki is among most powerful figure in Nepal, due to his influence, many people (especially from media) were jailed. Many people and TV programs have been banned, yet Karki is still enjoying the comfortable chair of the chief commissioner. In this context, scandals and raising voice against it are proved to be disastrous to many people in Nepal.
Likewise, a former minister, named Khum Bahadur Khadka, in Nepal - who is still popular among general public - became the victim of media scandals. He is perceived as a competent and effective minister. Nevertheless, due to some unknown reasons, he always ignored media interviews, so that media always blamed him for different unethical cases. Although these blames are yet to be proved authentic by the tribunal, the thing is these media scandals favored to degrade the party base of Khadka. He has done good, people also support him, but the medias seem to be enjoying discrediting his reputation.
Finally, at the end of the day, it is clear that scandals might be, sometimes, useful in focusing public' attention to solve particular exigent problem. However, its not absolute; in many cases scandals do bad as well. The examples and arguments, presented above, are to shore up my position.
- 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 83
- Leadership change most after five years. 16
- The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station.Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this time period, most of the compl 83
- The director of a large group of hospitals recommends to supply UltraClean, an extra strength lequid hand soap, to prevent serious infections in his hospital system. In order to shore up his recommendation, he has given the example of hospital in Worktown 70
- Reason: The reputation of anyone who is subjected to media scrutiny will eventually be diminished.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based. 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 259, Rule ID: IT_IS[6]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: it's; it is
...no reformer - or advocate - ever could, its not the final truth. As far as I am con...
^^^
Line 1, column 326, Rule ID: THE_SOME_DAY[1]
Message: Did you mean 'same'?
Suggestion: same
... far as I am concerned, I wont deny the some rare positive, and change bringing, eff...
^^^^
Line 4, column 928, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...e, some good news are going to come up, isnt it? Up to this point, I also agree with...
^^^^
Line 6, column 632, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... programs have been banned, yet Karki is still enjoying the comfortable chair of ...
^^
Line 8, column 95, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
..., in Nepal - who is still popular among general public - became the victim of media scandals. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'finally', 'however', 'if', 'likewise', 'may', 'nevertheless', 'regarding', 'so', 'still', 'then', 'therefore', 'thus', 'well', 'while', 'as to', 'for example', 'in contrast', 'in many cases', 'in some cases']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.246710526316 0.240241500013 103% => OK
Verbs: 0.141447368421 0.157235817809 90% => OK
Adjectives: 0.111842105263 0.0880659088768 127% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0509868421053 0.0497285424764 103% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0444078947368 0.0444667217837 100% => OK
Prepositions: 0.103618421053 0.12292977631 84% => OK
Participles: 0.0394736842105 0.0406280797675 97% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.77463487437 2.79330140395 99% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0345394736842 0.030933414821 112% => OK
Particles: 0.00328947368421 0.0016655270985 198% => OK
Determiners: 0.0657894736842 0.0997080785238 66% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.00986842105263 0.0249443105267 40% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00822368421053 0.0148568991511 55% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3232.0 2732.02544248 118% => OK
No of words: 523.0 452.878318584 115% => OK
Chars per words: 6.17973231358 6.0361032391 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78217453174 4.58838876751 104% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.405353728489 0.366273622748 111% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.317399617591 0.280924506359 113% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.225621414914 0.200843997647 112% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.141491395793 0.132149295362 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77463487437 2.79330140395 99% => OK
Unique words: 298.0 219.290929204 136% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.569789674952 0.48968727796 116% => OK
Word variations: 72.7439280096 55.4138127331 131% => OK
How many sentences: 27.0 20.6194690265 131% => OK
Sentence length: 19.3703703704 23.380412469 83% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.5769759385 59.4972553346 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.703703704 141.124799967 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3703703704 23.380412469 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.777777777778 0.674092028746 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.21349557522 96% => OK
Readability: 51.1103321295 51.4728631049 99% => OK
Elegance: 1.64583333333 1.64882698954 100% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.213234277975 0.391690518653 54% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0773582939612 0.123202303941 63% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0620990002886 0.077325440228 80% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.428729844972 0.547984918172 78% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.154525102918 0.149214159877 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0702857989147 0.161403998019 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.098674184348 0.0892212321368 111% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.30794853579 0.385218514788 80% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0395358182931 0.0692045440612 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.154294370924 0.275328986314 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.109992340662 0.0653680567796 168% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.4325221239 77% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 17.0 5.30420353982 321% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.88274336283 41% => OK
Positive topic words: 4.0 7.22455752212 55% => OK
Negative topic words: 14.0 3.66592920354 382% => Less negative topic words wanted.
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.70907079646 37% => OK
Total topic words: 19.0 13.5995575221 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.