Claim: The emergence of the online “blogosphere” and social media has significantly weakened the quality of political discourse in the United States.
Reason: When anyone can publish political opinions easily, standards for covering news and political topics will inevitably decline
Everyone have their own political opinions. Stating their opinions does not mean that the quality of political discourse has been weakened. The standards for covering the political topics will not change if there are too many opinions by people. I do not agree with the reason for the claim as the opinions of people will not weaken the quality of political discourse. People use social media as a means to express their opinions. They have use the social media as a platform for expressing their views, criticizing an action, praising a decision, etc. By having a platform for people to express their political opinions it will not weaken the quality of political discourse. In fact, it will provide a better view on what news to cover.
Social media can be used as a platform to get the opinions of the people and to express opinions of the people. This platform provides us a view of the people, which gives information of a decision or a move made by leaders. This provides a better view for leaders as well, so they can get to know the peoples reaction and how to make measures for the next steps. For example, let us consider a rule passed by a leader stating there will be increase in import taxes in order to promote local goods. In this case the people views from the social media can be used to explain the peoples reaction to cover the news on this new rule. These opinions can also be used by the leaders to know the peoples reaction and to take steps accordingly to address them.
Some might argue that opinions posted through social media can weaken the quality of covering news. They might assert that there are too many opinions on a topic about what to do and the standards will weaken for covering this news. To illustrate this let us take an example of the current ongoing issue of a plan to build the longest statue in India. There are a lot of views on social media stating better plans instead of wasting money on building the statues. So, people might argue that presence of too many opinions can cause the quality to weaken. But having too many opinions on a topics provides a broader view of the topic. By analysing the issue the news coverage can be made highlighting the better opinions of all. So by having too many opinions not only gives us a broader view but also provides us with many more plans that leaders might not be thinking of.
So, the emergence of the social media will not weaken the quality of the political discourse. In fact, it will gives a broad view of the political views there by making the coverage of the news very effective.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-11 | YASSINETURKI | 50 | view |
| 2023-07-04 | Technoblade | 66 | view |
| 2022-12-18 | p_keerthika | 50 | view |
| 2022-07-24 | afroza2 | 83 | view |
| 2022-07-24 | afroza2 | 83 | view |
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition. 58
- Social media is becoming increasingly popular amongst all age groups. However, sharing personal information on social media websites does have risks.Do you think that the advantages of social media outweigh the disadvantages? 56
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. 66
- The graph below shows population figures for India and China since the year 2000 and predicted population growth up until 2050. 84
- The table below gives information about a restaurant’s average sales in three different branches in 2016. 67
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 303, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'peoples'' or 'people's'?
Suggestion: peoples'; people's
...rs as well, so they can get to know the peoples reaction and how to make measures for t...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 579, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'peoples'' or 'people's'?
Suggestion: peoples'; people's
...social media can be used to explain the peoples reaction to cover the news on this new ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 691, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'peoples'' or 'people's'?
Suggestion: peoples'; people's
...also be used by the leaders to know the peoples reaction and to take steps accordingly ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 588, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a topic' or simply 'topics'?
Suggestion: a topic; topics
...weaken. But having too many opinions on a topics provides a broader view of the topic. B...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 112, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'give'
Suggestion: give
...e political discourse. In fact, it will gives a broad view of the political views the...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, but, if, so, well, for example, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 19.5258426966 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.4196629213 153% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 14.8657303371 47% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.3162921348 53% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 33.0505617978 91% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 58.6224719101 107% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 12.9106741573 46% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2121.0 2235.4752809 95% => OK
No of words: 466.0 442.535393258 105% => OK
Chars per words: 4.55150214592 5.05705443957 90% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64618479453 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.33106976268 2.79657885939 83% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 215.323595506 79% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.3669527897 0.4932671777 74% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 673.2 704.065955056 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59117977528 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 25.3500150668 60.3974514979 42% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 88.375 118.986275619 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4166666667 23.4991977007 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.41666666667 5.21951772744 46% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
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: 0.29128877368 0.243740707755 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.113189318558 0.0831039109588 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0906876830034 0.0758088955206 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.207166810249 0.150359130593 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0850017771189 0.0667264976115 127% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.7 14.1392134831 69% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 69.11 48.8420337079 141% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.3 12.1743820225 68% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.11 12.1639044944 75% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.85 8.38706741573 82% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 100.480337079 67% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
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 by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.