Humankind has become more and more dependent on the social structures so far. Political concensus that leads socio-economical well-being of the society as a result, have become crucial for societies. In other words, leaders of the society have roles which have more impact on the individuals lifes than the ancient times because of modernized structures. Therefore, politicians are required to be collaborative instead of polarizing the societies by considering common senses of the individuals. I will explore the reasons in the following essay.
There is an argment which postions itself on the opposited side of the argument existed in the prompt. Some of the philosophers interested in political philosophy suggest that politicians should expand the vision and perseverence of the individuals by providing sophisticated thoughts which have no ground on the society. In other words, politicians should guide the society instead of creating bridges between individuals. For instance, societies that include individuals with less intellectual levels are struggled with creating modernised society with well-designed byzantine structures. As a result, political leaders should lead the society to adopt modern world by providing modernised ideals to them. Ataturk, creater of the modern Turkey, can be given as an example for this type of leader.
In contrast to the argument above, although the leaders are tend to ignore the capacity of individuals, intellectuality of societies are prompt to change, which means that there is no crucial requirement for leading societies. Instead, political figures should have enough perseverance to make individuals to be able to communicate with each other by providing freedom for them. Since the world has become globally connected with each other, individuals don’t need any guidance than the platforms that connect them to the other individuals. For instance, universities of the nation are now satifactorily modernised with the help of technology pervasively implemented to the different kinds of process of researching and learning. As a result, if the politicians are able to provide common ground for politicians and the people of the society, the individuals would benefit from modern ideas and they would become familiar with the globalized world with the help of technology. Therefore, leading people to be able to interact with each other has more benefit than leading them by just presenting unfamiliar ideas.
Last but not least, presenting utopic ideals to the individuals is not enough for sustaining the improvement because of two reasons. First of all, reflection of these ideas doesn’t exist in the society, which leads the new generations to be less capable of sustaining the effort. Secondly, since these elusive ideals should be founded by government in order to implement them to the society because of the lack of enough capability for understanding these unfamiliar guides, they will become harder to support. In other words, resources that these ideas need in order to be sustained can not be provided by just politicans, so they won’t help to the society in the long term. For instance, Ataturk tried to make other parties included in the society to join the effort to be able to both provide enough resources and provide sufficent ground for expanding these ideas in the society. To explain with other words, Ataturk has tried to provide reasonable and understable concensuses to the society by putting effort for forming common ground such as TBMM. As a result, these ideas still exist in the Turkish society.
In conclusion, the idea of providing just unfamiliar ideals which are impossible to understand easily by the society is flawed. Politicians should smell the common senses to be able to lead the society to be developed.
- Politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take In de 58
- In any field of inquiry the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions 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 I 66
- As we acquire more knowledge things do not become more comprehensible but more complex and mysterious 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 66
- People s behavior is largely determined by forces not of their own making 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 16
- Some people believe that college students should consider only their own talents and interests when choosing a field of study Others believe that college students should base their choice of a field of study on the availability of jobs in that field Writ 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 104, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: Some
... of the argument existed in the prompt. Some of the philosophers interested in political ph...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 61, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'tended'.
Suggestion: tended
...rgument above, although the leaders are tend to ignore the capacity of individuals, ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, well, for instance, in conclusion, in contrast, such as, as a result, first of all, in contrast to, in other words
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 : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 33.0505617978 70% => OK
Preposition: 102.0 58.6224719101 174% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3213.0 2235.4752809 144% => OK
No of words: 597.0 442.535393258 135% => OK
Chars per words: 5.38190954774 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.94303383012 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9695256517 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 246.0 215.323595506 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.412060301508 0.4932671777 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1015.2 704.065955056 144% => 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: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.7543697952 60.3974514979 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.576923077 118.986275619 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9615384615 23.4991977007 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.53846153846 5.21951772744 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.83258426966 207% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.153469015676 0.243740707755 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0523048290104 0.0831039109588 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0322996149271 0.0758088955206 43% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10303552818 0.150359130593 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0160855620311 0.0667264976115 24% => 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: 15.4 14.1392134831 109% => 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: 14.22 12.1639044944 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.51 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 143.0 100.480337079 142% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.