Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.
Some people argue that scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that our society neglects. Others hold that scandals contribute nothing to the improvement of our society. Both arguments are equally important and mutually exclusive. As long as scandals are defined as events that contradict laws or social norms, draw public attention, and induce outrage, scandals could sometimes open up a policy window, which paves wave for making changes in our society, though scandals alone do not guarantee the improvement of the institutions in our society.
Admittedly, in order to cater the taste of the immediate public, journalists and reporters sometimes fabricate sensational stories or exaggerate facts. Scandals born this way do no good to our society. For example, former U.S. President J. F. Kennedy was reported to have an affair with the sex symbol Marilyn Monroe outside his marriage. Moreover, when Monroe was found dead in her apartment, some sordid stories appeared in tabloids saying that it was Kennedy who had Monroe killed in order to avoid a political disaster. Such scandals have no evidence to support and they become nothing but the subjects of much gossip in bars.
Nonetheless, scandals once proved to be true, could bring some long-forgotten social problems into the spotlight, which offers an opportunity to fix some dilapidated systems and institutions. In 2014, an Arizona Veteran Health Administration facility was reported to have seen at least 40 U.S. Arm Forces veterans die while waiting for care. The scandal went viral and the then Secretary of U.S Veteran Affairs was forced to resign under pressure. Movements and campaigns for veterans’ right soared in many cities in the U.S, opening a policy window to reform the healthcare system for the veterans.
While scandals draw public attention to problems that no reformer or speaker dares to bring on the table, scandals alone do not guarantee fixing the problems. The very attention a problem enjoyed is short, and therefore the opportunity to make a change could slip away if we fail to seize it. The controversial Edward Snowden’s scandal reveals the government’s invasion of American’s privacy. However, attention for the issue of privacy was diluted by Snowden’s illegal disclosure, and a policy window to make changes to better protect American’s privacy was shut down quickly. As a result, Snow’s scandal failed to give birth to a better protection of American’s privacy
To conclude, scandals without evidence may end up being subjects of gossip in a bar or a nightclub. Once proved to be true, scandals have the potential to open up a policy window that provides a valuable opportunity to fix some long-forgotten problems in our society. However, attention brought by scandals could be ephemeral, and the opportunity to make a change may simply slip away if we fail to act promptly.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 394, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: S
... went viral and the then Secretary of U.S Veteran Affairs was forced to resign un...
^
Line 5, column 529, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: S
...s; right soared in many cities in the U.S, opening a policy window to reform the ...
^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'nonetheless', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'while', 'as for', 'at least', 'for example', 'as a result']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.289908256881 0.240241500013 121% => OK
Verbs: 0.159633027523 0.157235817809 102% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0605504587156 0.0880659088768 69% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0495412844037 0.0497285424764 100% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0275229357798 0.0444667217837 62% => OK
Prepositions: 0.0954128440367 0.12292977631 78% => OK
Participles: 0.0293577981651 0.0406280797675 72% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.00471001702 2.79330140395 108% => OK
Infinitives: 0.045871559633 0.030933414821 148% => OK
Particles: 0.00733944954128 0.0016655270985 441% => OK
Determiners: 0.0880733944954 0.0997080785238 88% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0110091743119 0.0249443105267 44% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0110091743119 0.0148568991511 74% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2947.0 2732.02544248 108% => OK
No of words: 469.0 452.878318584 104% => OK
Chars per words: 6.28358208955 6.0361032391 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65364457471 4.58838876751 101% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.432835820896 0.366273622748 118% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.319829424307 0.280924506359 114% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.234541577825 0.200843997647 117% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.142857142857 0.132149295362 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00471001702 2.79330140395 108% => OK
Unique words: 251.0 219.290929204 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.535181236674 0.48968727796 109% => OK
Word variations: 63.5390504705 55.4138127331 115% => OK
How many sentences: 21.0 20.6194690265 102% => OK
Sentence length: 22.3333333333 23.380412469 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.1090090629 59.4972553346 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 140.333333333 141.124799967 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3333333333 23.380412469 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.666666666667 0.674092028746 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.21349557522 38% => OK
Readability: 54.316275764 51.4728631049 106% => OK
Elegance: 1.7519379845 1.64882698954 106% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.249666823358 0.391690518653 64% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.100112659287 0.123202303941 81% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0965269181263 0.077325440228 125% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.511891859653 0.547984918172 93% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.143224687126 0.149214159877 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0962369030982 0.161403998019 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.1242801448 0.0892212321368 139% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.340957479164 0.385218514788 89% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0401465529547 0.0692045440612 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.166373137352 0.275328986314 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.116561672447 0.0653680567796 178% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 10.4325221239 19% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 16.0 5.30420353982 302% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88274336283 61% => OK
Positive topic words: 2.0 7.22455752212 28% => More positive topic words wanted.
Negative topic words: 8.0 3.66592920354 218% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.70907079646 37% => OK
Total topic words: 11.0 13.5995575221 81% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.