"If a goal is worthy, then any means taken to attain it are justifiable."

Please rate my essay

flaws:
Number of Paragraphs: 3 5

better to have 5 paragraphs:

para 1: introduction.
para 2: reason 1
para 3: reason 2
para 4: reason 3 (optional)
para 5: conclusion

And you couldn't replace arguments by on example.

Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 13 15
No. of Words: 369 350
No. of Characters: 1741 1500
No. of Different Words: 190 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.383 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.718 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.575 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 123 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 92 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 47 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 32 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.385 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.846 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.615 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.345 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.529 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.201 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 3 5

Goal, in reality, is attained when the process to reach at the goal is defined within the human and ethical boundaries. Someone has correctly said that even the animals eat, but what makes humans different from animals is the way they eat. I completely agree with this statement because it is important for a person to understand some basic limitations under which he/she has to work to attain the results, no matter how worthy these results are. I believe that it is better not to attain such goals if inhuman and unethical proceedings are required to accomplish them.

One of best examples could be of the role of Mohandas Karamchandra Gandhi, a revolutionary and well known as father of India, in the freedom fighting against the British tyrannical rule. Gandhi ji was a person who, above anybody in India, wanted freedom. He was always against racism, inequality, and other social evils, which were prevailing at the time of British rule in India. But, he has a very strict rule of non-violence. He wanted freedom but not at the cost of killing someone. Gandhi ji started several movements to throw the British rule out of the country, for example, non-cooperation movement, a revolutionary movement which aimed to jettison the use of British clothings and to encourage Indians to prepare clothes for themselves. Within very few days of the start of this movement, he took it back because some of the other revolutionaries, with the same aim of India's freedom, started killing British policemen and army, which let down Gandhi ji and forced him to take the movement back as he wanted to attain freedom with peace and non-violence, and not by hurting someone.

On the other hand, consider Adolf Hitler, a politician and the leader of the Nazi Party. He wanted to rule over the world and in accomplishment of his goal, he did see the massive destruction, he was creating to the human life. He created a political party in Germany and forced every other party to dissolve. Those who didn't agree to him, were brutally killed. He had a radical motivated ideology which resulted in killing of more than 5.5 million jews, which led to the beginning of the World War II. His goal of ruling over his people may be considered logical, but the way he wanted to achieve it, was not justified at all.

To conclude, I believe that people have few or more goals in their life to accomplish and they want to work hard to get them done, but the most satisfied, internally and in others' views, are those who attain their goals within some of the limitations defined. People praise those who, might not get the desired results, but always stick to the rules and boundaries of ethics and humanity, compared to those who land upon the cruel and inhuman behavior, just to get something they want.

----Can u please rate this