Scandals have been imminent in the society from times immemorial, ranging from politics, academia, to other areas. We have been shocked recently by the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica Data Privacy Scandal where the data of millions of users were stolen for manipulating political activities including Brexit referendum and US presidential election; and by the college admission scandals where the rich bought positions for their children in elite universities. Such big news can draw our attention to problems which we have overlooked and which might have huge impact on our society, and in a way that no speaker or reformer could achieve.
First of all, scandals actually play a significant role in addressing issues which might have been overlooked by the public. Indeed, for example, data privacy is not an issue emerging suddenly after the malevolent behavior of those technology giants has been revealed. Applications start collecting our sensitive data once granted our permission. The giving of such permission, however, is done implicitly without our notice, and sometimes forcefully because without such a permission, the application won't work. Few consumers will complain about or even feel the encroachment of their privacy, let alone the CEOs of high-tech companies. Surely, some speakers concerning the impact of high-tech on human and those hoping for a technology reform may stand out, saying against Facebook and Twitter. But given the monopoly and dominance of the high-tech platforms, speakers and reformers themselves rely on those platforms and their voices will likely be ignored over time. Scandals, on the other hand, expose the issue to the eye of every user, evoke heated debate on how privacy data should be treated by a company, and more importantly, point out possible solutions to preventing such events from happening again.
Another characteristic of scandals, is their far-reaching influence. For the data privacy example, not only the interest of millions of users is hurt, the interest of the society as a whole is also impaired, since the data could be utilized to interfere with critical national and even international political events. For the second example in the introduction, hearing the university admission scandals, a natural reaction for almost every family having the children entered university legitimately is to feel unfairness. Besides, the goal of education equality and the right to pursuit knowledge of every one, are unfortunately damaged. On the other hand, the propagation of news is fueled by modern communication technologies like the Internet, so the influence of scandals can be world-wide, a degree of which a discourse of a single speaker cannot easily obtain. The usefulness of scandals, is based largely on its ability to reach a large section of the society and penetrate it.
One may say that speakers and reformers can also preach around, recognizing social problems and advocating their ideas on how to improve our society. Of course, they do, and sometimes do it well. But more often, they are talking about the future. A reformer may anticipate problems that are likely to occur when a new policy is practiced, and provide some preventing methods. A scandal, however, focuses on what has happened, and it is human nature to learn from the past, from mistakes. Knowledge gained from experiences is usually more valuable, more perpetual than those from conjecture about the future. Therefore, scandals not only expose social problems, but also call for collective efforts on finding solutions and make indispensable contribution to the society.
- In the past it was easier to identify what type of career or job would lead to a secure, successful future. 73
- SCANDALS WHETHER IN POLITICS, ACADEMIA, OR OTHER AREAS CAN BE USEFUL. THEY FOCUS OUR ATTENTION ON PROBLEMS IN WAYS THAT NO SPEAKER OR REFORMERS EVER COULD 83
- the rules that the whole society today expect young people to follow are too strict. 86
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, besides, but, first, however, if, look, may, second, so, therefore, well, for example, of course, talking about, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.5258426966 118% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 25.0 14.8657303371 168% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 33.0505617978 85% => OK
Preposition: 78.0 58.6224719101 133% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3057.0 2235.4752809 137% => OK
No of words: 567.0 442.535393258 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.39153439153 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87972968509 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93586860331 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 306.0 215.323595506 142% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.539682539683 0.4932671777 109% => OK
syllable_count: 985.5 704.065955056 140% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 10.0 1.77640449438 563% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.6843726487 60.3974514979 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.375 118.986275619 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.625 23.4991977007 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.66666666667 5.21951772744 128% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 5.13820224719 253% => 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: 0.222758895132 0.243740707755 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0536847614998 0.0831039109588 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0596488181511 0.0758088955206 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.132032536264 0.150359130593 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0555638980126 0.0667264976115 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.1392134831 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.8420337079 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.28 12.1639044944 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.82 8.38706741573 117% => OK
difficult_words: 181.0 100.480337079 180% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.5 11.8971910112 172% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 21.0 11.7820224719 178% => 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: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.