In any situation, progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view.
Human beings have different background, including education, area of expertise, belief, or moral reasoning process. For example, some people may prefer utilitarianism; some people may prefer justice and fairness. The meaning of progress depends on the situation.
Contrasting ideas may spur their discussion by comparing and contrasting their reasonings. However, people having similar ideas will just agree and stop there.
First, the Great Compromise would be a great example of showing the superiority of discussion between contrasting ideas. States having large population wanted to retain their power, whereas states having small population wanted to grasp power. They discussed their reasonings behind and reached the conclusion, and the conclusion became the basis of current US congress. As shown above, contrasting ideas can generate hybrid, but developed policy by encompassing the both view. Some may believe discussion between contracting idea may be not effective because they will hinder the process. However, fast process will be risky because it will cause hastiness and cursoriness. Some may question what if no decision is made? That is why most of the countries in the world adopted democracy.
Second, a contrasting idea can also play a role as ‘watchdog’ for the opponent. In Korea, Myung Bak Lee, a former president of Republic of Korea, had an ambitious economic plan saving the suburban area. However, the plan has had encountered many criticism by environmentalists. After long and enthusiastic discussions, the plan encompassed the environmentalists’ concern. Furthermore, the environmentalists could monitor whether the plan keeps the environmental guideline. Consequently, through the discussion between the contrasting idea, Korea could grasp the two contrasting concept: Environment and economy
Furthermore, by having contrasting ideas, people can learn from a new perspective. As aforementioned, people have different idea since they have different area of expertise or culture. Imagine that a marketing department of your company came up with an idea. However, in fact, the marketing idea did not consider the financial burden of the company. If the marketing department proceed the idea without checking with other departments, such as finance department that have opposing idea, it may be detrimental, not beneficial, to the company. If they have had a meeting with different department which have different opinion, the plan could have helped the company.
Lastly, people tend to be lethargic; without rivalry, there would be slower process. In fact, many psychology journals have examined the effect of rivalry. Discussion between two similar opinions will not spark enthusiastic discussion. However, through discussion between the two contrasting ideas, people can develop a plan.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-29 | Seonghun | 83 | view |
| 2019-11-26 | cnegus | 58 | view |
| 2019-11-20 | jessie_llj | 66 | view |
| 2019-11-07 | melavdev | 50 | view |
| 2019-11-05 | jdpatel1107 | 50 | view |
- In any situation, progress requires discussion among people who have contrastingpoints of view 16
- In any situation, progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view 16
- Colleges and universities should require their students to spend at least one semester studying in a foreign country Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the 50
- Colleges and universities should require their students to spend at least one semester studying in a foreign country 70
- In any situation, progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view. 16
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 626, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rasting concept: Environment and economy Furthermore, by having contrasting ideas...
^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'consequently', 'first', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'lastly', 'may', 'second', 'so', 'thus', 'whereas', 'for example', 'in fact', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.268686868687 0.240241500013 112% => OK
Verbs: 0.159595959596 0.157235817809 102% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0747474747475 0.0880659088768 85% => OK
Adverbs: 0.030303030303 0.0497285424764 61% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0222222222222 0.0444667217837 50% => OK
Prepositions: 0.10303030303 0.12292977631 84% => OK
Participles: 0.0545454545455 0.0406280797675 134% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.25165137319 2.79330140395 116% => OK
Infinitives: 0.00808080808081 0.030933414821 26% => Some infinitives wanted.
Particles: 0.0020202020202 0.0016655270985 121% => OK
Determiners: 0.0989898989899 0.0997080785238 99% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0424242424242 0.0249443105267 170% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.010101010101 0.0148568991511 68% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2847.0 2732.02544248 104% => OK
No of words: 419.0 452.878318584 93% => OK
Chars per words: 6.79474940334 6.0361032391 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52432199235 4.58838876751 99% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.453460620525 0.366273622748 124% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.360381861575 0.280924506359 128% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.272076372315 0.200843997647 135% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.198090692124 0.132149295362 150% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.25165137319 2.79330140395 116% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 219.290929204 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.536992840095 0.48968727796 110% => OK
Word variations: 61.6020068991 55.4138127331 111% => OK
How many sentences: 28.0 20.6194690265 136% => OK
Sentence length: 14.9642857143 23.380412469 64% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.9536906831 59.4972553346 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.678571429 141.124799967 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.9642857143 23.380412469 64% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.571428571429 0.674092028746 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.94800884956 121% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.21349557522 19% => OK
Readability: 51.0024718718 51.4728631049 99% => OK
Elegance: 2.00952380952 1.64882698954 122% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.176609915904 0.391690518653 45% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0969873762425 0.123202303941 79% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.102411287493 0.077325440228 132% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.461591759432 0.547984918172 84% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.135918578567 0.149214159877 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0631668744099 0.161403998019 39% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0487776585972 0.0892212321368 55% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.243021989201 0.385218514788 63% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.099090178234 0.0692045440612 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.1223018021 0.275328986314 44% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0391086057724 0.0653680567796 60% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.4325221239 77% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.30420353982 151% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.88274336283 246% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 4.0 7.22455752212 55% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 3.66592920354 136% => OK
Neutral topic words: 10.0 2.70907079646 369% => OK
Total topic words: 19.0 13.5995575221 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.