We can learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own.
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.
As the maxim goes: "It is better to debate a question without settling it, than to settle a question without debating it." By surrounding ourselves with people of similar opinion, we are limiting ourselves. Democracy and intellect are fueled by differences; we are able to digest more knowledge by associating with those of differing opinions.
To begin with, humans are inherently biased towards their opinions. We are irrational creatures who based predilection on emotion. A recent Wall Street Journal article was published shedding light on the "overconfidence effect." The author went as far to say that over 60% of the "facts" that people strongly believe in are false. People do not realize the subliminal bias involved in what we perceive as true; it is imperative. Thus, by surrounding ourselves with people of opposing views, we are able to spark debate and force ourselves to substantiate our claims with facts.
Furthermore, it is illogical to believe that we are comfortable with our level of knowledge on any given subject. Debate sparks conversation and conversation leads to learning. For instance, a CNN special followed the lives of North Koreans who ran away from the closed off country. One of the emigrants spoke of the citizens of North Korea, mentioning that civilians love North Korea out of oblivion to the real world, blindly following the impassioned words of their dictatorial ruler. Questioning our views is equally as important as questioning opposing views, otherwise we run the risk of being misguided.
However, debate is not always amicable. It can easily turn awry, and suddenly stimulating conversation turns to scouring. Alternatively, surrounding ourselves with similar minded peers is unlikely to have such an outcome. Agreement can produce volumous conversation and inform on subjects previously unknown.
Irregardless, conversing with people maintaining alternative views encourages more in-depth conversation. Both sides speak vehemently on subjects which they feel strongly about. Facts and opinions are clearly laid out, attempting to sway each side; in turn, we are presented with a multitude of perspect and knowledge and are able to make informed decisions.
- To be an effective leader, a public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards.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 50
- The following is a recommendation from the Board of Directors of Monarch Books. "We recommend that Monarch Books open a café in its store. Monarch, having been in business at the same location for more than twenty years, has a large customer base because 68
- Practice test 16
- Some people believe it is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public. Others believe that the public has a right to be fully informed.Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns 83
- When Stanley Park first opened, it was the largest, most heavily used public park in town. It is still the largest park, but it is no longer heavily used. Video cameras mounted in the park's parking lots last month revealed the park's drop in popularity: 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 514, Rule ID: EQUALLY_AS[1]
Message: Don't say 'equally as'. You can use either 'equally' or 'as' on its own. When comparing two nouns, use 'just as'.
Suggestion: equally; as; just as
...atorial ruler. Questioning our views is equally as important as questioning opposing views...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, however, if, so, thus, for instance, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 12.4196629213 16% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 33.0505617978 91% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 58.6224719101 96% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1904.0 2235.4752809 85% => OK
No of words: 343.0 442.535393258 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.55102040816 5.05705443957 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30351707066 4.55969084622 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16952665909 2.79657885939 113% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 215.323595506 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.612244897959 0.4932671777 124% => OK
syllable_count: 590.4 704.065955056 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.740449438202 0% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 52.8745444569 60.3974514979 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.210526316 118.986275619 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0526315789 23.4991977007 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.31578947368 5.21951772744 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.18069778742 0.243740707755 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0517216597876 0.0831039109588 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0395245799952 0.0758088955206 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.094668724197 0.150359130593 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0329831863999 0.0667264976115 49% => 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: 13.7 14.1392134831 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.8420337079 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.61 12.1639044944 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.55 8.38706741573 114% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 100.480337079 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.