Strong beliefs prevent people from thinking clearly about issues.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
From an accurate analysis of the contemporaneous society in which we live, one may assert that individuals are more reluctant to listen to others’ opinion, sticking to their beliefs. However, the claim results too extreme to be extended on the entirety of humanity and thus it should be rejected.
The reasoning assumes that each person is equal in the way in which he thinks about issues. This sounds contradictory as human thought differs for several aspects, such as the personality, customs and tradition of the social environment. For example, in the scientific community, it is common practice to change the view that has been held for decades or even centuries when a new breakthrough is presented. Even if, at first, the innovation may be undermined by obstructionism, due to the wrong behavior of some individuals, at the end it is accepted by the totality of connoisseurs. The evolution of Economics is characterized by the interchange of theories which are - for most of the case - incompatible. When the “General theory” of J.M. Keynes was written at the end of 1930s, Marginalist economists disproved it as it challenged the theory of the general equilibrium. Nevertheless, mainstream economists started to study Keynes’ new ideas, accepting their validity and, successively, giving birth to the Neoclassical syntheses. This example can be applied in each scientific field where the main purpose of scientist is to find the truth. Therefore, among the population, the scientific community has always been able to doubt its strong believes, adapting to novel views.
In addition, not only the peculiarities of a person - or a group - have to be considered, but also the typology of the belief, namely, whether it pursues right ideals, which its realization may change the status quo, enhancing the quality of human beings. Looking at history, it is possible to find different examples that weaken the postulated assumption. Martin L. King is well known for his strenuous fight against white supremacy in United States, seeking to achieve equal rights for the black community. M. Gandhi devoted his entire life to the philosophy of the non-violence, promoting peace and diplomacy as solution to every conflict. These two insightful figures persevered their strong ideas until death, since their highest dream was to change in better the lives of people. Nobody would have the audacity to assert that their ability to think was damaged by strong beliefs. On the contrary, someone would say that thanks to these, they resisted to threats and persecutions until they were able to breathe.
Moreover, a counterargument may rely on the idea that masses are easy to persuade and thus to implant wrongful beliefs, clouding their capability of thinking clearly. For instance, during the Nazism and Fascism era, individuals overall were fully convinced of the ideal promoted by the extremist political movements. Accordingly, the were fascinated and euphoric by the idea of nationalism and race supremacy enough to accept daily social discriminations and mass murder. Racist laws, introduced by Italy and then Germany between 1920-1930, and the construction of concentration camps are compelling evidences of the main idea behind the claim. Notwithstanding, there were people who were not obfuscated by these idealisms and that were still capable to think lucidly about the consequences of an authoritarian regime. Actually, thanks to these heroes, as they opposed energetically against them, sacrificing their own lives, fascists countries were liberated, boosting up the establishment of democracy in Europe. Hence, following their believes, they were able to save millions of individuals.
To conclude, the statement cannot be sustained as it assumes an extremist viewpoint. The ability to not be clouded by own beliefs depends on the person and the ideals that these pursue. In the history of human, it is possible to find some examples that would concur with the claim, but in the majority of the cases, the former reveals misleading.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 298, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...umanity and thus it should be rejected. The reasoning assumes that each person i...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 1246, Rule ID: BELIEVE_BELIEF[1]
Message: Did you mean 'beliefs' (noun) instead of believes (verb)?
Suggestion: beliefs
...as always been able to doubt its strong believes, adapting to novel views. In addit...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1281, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rong believes, adapting to novel views. In addition, not only the peculiarities ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 1039, Rule ID: BELIEVE_BELIEF[1]
Message: Did you mean 'beliefs' (noun) instead of believes (verb)?
Suggestion: beliefs
...cracy in Europe. Hence, following their believes, they were able to save millions of ind...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, actually, also, but, first, hence, however, if, look, may, moreover, nevertheless, so, still, then, therefore, thus, well, as to, for example, for instance, in addition, such as, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.5258426966 169% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 33.0505617978 136% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 100.0 58.6224719101 171% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3417.0 2235.4752809 153% => OK
No of words: 641.0 442.535393258 145% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.33073322933 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.0316973083 4.55969084622 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04640471635 2.79657885939 109% => OK
Unique words: 362.0 215.323595506 168% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.564742589704 0.4932671777 114% => OK
syllable_count: 1062.0 704.065955056 151% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.38483146067 251% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 20.2370786517 138% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.8580267998 60.3974514979 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.035714286 118.986275619 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8928571429 23.4991977007 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.39285714286 5.21951772744 142% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 10.2758426966 156% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0903884847846 0.243740707755 37% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0227404019031 0.0831039109588 27% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0300841404096 0.0758088955206 40% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0482021873756 0.150359130593 32% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.015287740133 0.0667264976115 23% => 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: 15.1 14.1392134831 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.8420337079 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.1743820225 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.93 12.1639044944 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.75 8.38706741573 116% => OK
difficult_words: 204.0 100.480337079 203% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.