“Progress is best made through discussion among people who have contrasting points of view.
It is always a good thing to have a healthy discussion wherein people have contrasting points of view. Such a discussion enables everyone participating in the discussion to address the issue from the perspective of the others. However, can you force someone else to agree to your viewpoint? On the contrary, how many times have you agreed with the viewpoint of the other person or have you ever agreed that you are wrong and that the other person is right? We as humans always try to stick to our viewpoint and rarely admit that we are wrong. Therefore, can a discussion among people with contrasting points of view proceed in the right direction? It is true that everyone will learn something new as he sees the issue from a different angle, but it would be wrong to assume that such a discussion can actually lead to progress and that this would be the best way to make progress. On the contrary, it is very rare to make progress in the right direction when the participants of a discussion do not see eye to eye with each other on the issue being discussed.
Consider the example of a committee that has been constituted to work out the modalities for the implementation of a publicity campaign. What do you expect will happen if the members of the committee have contrasting viewpoints on the method to be adopted for the publicity campaign? If the members of the committee do not agree to a common method for the launch of the publicity campaign, how can one expect the details of the campaign to be worked out? The members of the committee who are of the view that spending money on advertising in the print media is a total wastage of money will definitely oppose those who think that the print media is as important as the television media. Each member will try his best to criticize the viewpoint of the other members in a bid to defend his own viewpoint. The discussion can progress further only if all members agree on a common method and then only can the other details be worked out.
There can be no progress if the participants of the discussion stick to their viewpoints which are in stark contrast to those of the others. Such a discussion would lead to total chaos and wastage of time. The only solution lies in either forcing some of the participants to agree to the viewpoints of the others or finding a solution that both parties agree to. Isn’t this always the best method to steer a discussion in a direction that will lead to progress? We have always heard of cases wherein discussions were fruitful because the participants either agreed on an issue unanimously or found a common ground where everyone agreed.
Whenever a discussion goes out of hand, the person chairing the discussion opts for carrying out voting to arrive at the solution which is agreed to by a majority of the participants. This is done because it is certain that a discussion cannot progress in the right direction if the participants have contrasting points of view.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-02-22 | shahajan999 | 62 | view |
| 2023-09-05 | sazid | 58 | view |
| 2023-08-05 | wopona8219 | 50 | view |
| 2023-08-05 | wopona8219 | 50 | view |
| 2023-08-05 | wopona8219 | 50 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 248, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...he only solution lies in either forcing some of the participants to agree to the viewpoints...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, however, if, so, then, therefore, it is true, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 33.0505617978 109% => OK
Preposition: 79.0 58.6224719101 135% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2450.0 2235.4752809 110% => OK
No of words: 526.0 442.535393258 119% => OK
Chars per words: 4.65779467681 5.05705443957 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78901763229 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70821744505 2.79657885939 97% => OK
Unique words: 206.0 215.323595506 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.391634980989 0.4932671777 79% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 754.2 704.065955056 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59117977528 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.4043061879 60.3974514979 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.666666667 118.986275619 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0476190476 23.4991977007 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.61904761905 5.21951772744 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.279237414047 0.243740707755 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0983721216691 0.0831039109588 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.107982886786 0.0758088955206 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.186256289648 0.150359130593 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0711512131601 0.0667264976115 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.1392134831 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.02 48.8420337079 129% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.04 12.1639044944 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.07 8.38706741573 84% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 100.480337079 73% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.7820224719 68% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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: 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.