"People who pursue their own intellectual interests for purely personal reasons are more
likely to benefit the rest of the world than are people who try to act for the public good."
It has been proven that being occupied by one particular task is more productive than more than one but, when public benefit in concerned, the above fact gets contradicted. Acting for the public good is the best approach, how people can benefit the world. Yes, the later approach can be slower in as much as may have to overcome numerous barrios but the return always tends to be satisfactory.
First of all, although working for one’s own personal reasons can be more productive and fast in the domain of achieving success but when public good comes into consideration, I believe that a slower approach is required, keeping in mind the needs of the society, problems and working together in order to achieve sustainability. The later approach though required more time but cannot be undermined in terms of public prosperity. For example, a person has developed a piece of portable equipment to make dirty water drinkable which can come in handy in the flood affected areas but, since he has not considered the actual scenario of the region, the equipment happened to be very costly and is beyond the affordability of the local people. The invention, though made for the people's good, did not succeed in it assigned task only because the developer has not considered people’s actual need with alacrity, as he was preoccupied with developing an effective and portable water purifier.
Secondly, working for public good put forward numerous barriers which are required to be overcome. These barriers are nothing but public problems and working for public means removing such barriers. Therefore, if a person work for his own personal interest, and think of doing good to the public, how can possibly that happen without considering the public interest?
Working for public good always includes a number of intellectuals, professors, scientists, human resource personals, environmentalist, politicians etc. It is clear from here that working for public good include more than one sharp brain, indicating the feasibility and effectiveness of the group. To bolster the claim that decisions taken through discussions are better, a good example would be the USA, a democratic country where decisions are taken over discussions, happens to be the first superpower of the world. Another example can be cited about India, another democratic country, is now considered the fasted growing country of the world.
Working for public require more than one sharp mind hence always results in a better decision, better approach and a better efficiency. Even if the working for personal gain is speedy and sometimes might also add in the favour of the public good but such achievements will be less profitable for the public as such approach rarely logs public interests.
- Nowadays, food has become easier to prepare. Has this change improved the way people live? 50
- People who pursue their own intellectual interests for purely personal reasons are more likely to benefit the rest of the world than are people who try to act for the public good 50
- As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but morecomplex and more mysterious. 16
- What most human beings really want to attain is not knowledge, but certainty. Gaining real knowledge requires taking risks and keeping the mind open—but most people prefer to be reassured rather than to learn the complex and often unsettling truth about 75
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 302, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'can'.
Suggestion: can
... think of doing good to the public, how can possibly that happen without considering the pub...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'hence', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'therefore', 'for example', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.20404040404 0.240241500013 85% => OK
Verbs: 0.163636363636 0.157235817809 104% => OK
Adjectives: 0.147474747475 0.0880659088768 167% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0565656565657 0.0497285424764 114% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0141414141414 0.0444667217837 32% => OK
Prepositions: 0.129292929293 0.12292977631 105% => OK
Participles: 0.0707070707071 0.0406280797675 174% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.8071483949 2.79330140395 100% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0181818181818 0.030933414821 59% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.0016655270985 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0949494949495 0.0997080785238 95% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0222222222222 0.0249443105267 89% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0141414141414 0.0148568991511 95% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2772.0 2732.02544248 101% => OK
No of words: 448.0 452.878318584 99% => OK
Chars per words: 6.1875 6.0361032391 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60065326758 4.58838876751 100% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.399553571429 0.366273622748 109% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.292410714286 0.280924506359 104% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.203125 0.200843997647 101% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.129464285714 0.132149295362 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8071483949 2.79330140395 100% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 219.290929204 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.517857142857 0.48968727796 106% => OK
Word variations: 59.634577147 55.4138127331 108% => OK
How many sentences: 16.0 20.6194690265 78% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 23.380412469 120% => OK
Sentence length SD: 72.5841914176 59.4972553346 122% => OK
Chars per sentence: 173.25 141.124799967 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.0 23.380412469 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.75 0.674092028746 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.21349557522 19% => OK
Readability: 57.2410714286 51.4728631049 111% => OK
Elegance: 1.72413793103 1.64882698954 105% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.437122019788 0.391690518653 112% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.138876172196 0.123202303941 113% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0866541763041 0.077325440228 112% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.605018702156 0.547984918172 110% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.112481091068 0.149214159877 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.191283169441 0.161403998019 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0885921759926 0.0892212321368 99% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.355421058653 0.385218514788 92% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0689118537341 0.0692045440612 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.298988589807 0.275328986314 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0293934961633 0.0653680567796 45% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.4325221239 144% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.30420353982 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.88274336283 0% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 14.0 7.22455752212 194% => OK
Negative topic words: 1.0 3.66592920354 27% => More negative topic words wanted.
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.70907079646 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 15.0 13.5995575221 110% => OK
---------------------
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 to cover all aspects.