The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority.
More and more people pursue higher well-being by questioning and challenging authority, in order to making sure their rights are granted and their voices can be heard. Some proponents praise these brave behaviors and devote into it avidly. Usually their needs will be satisfied, but sometimes will not. Actually, I fundamentally agree with their believes that well-being in our society will be relatively improved while people are actively participate in formulating social policies and welfare systems. However, there are some risks which will happen when we inopportunely and unsuitably question the government.
First, “well-being” is a term which involves a huge scale of factors in our society, such as the living standard, health condition, income status, happiness and so on. As the primary group who are measured with these factors, people are sufficiently aware of the influence brought by certain policies. Therefore, when they are confused by some implicit policies, they should be given enough rights to ask questions to government, and thus responded with satisfied answers from the policy makers. The election systems in many democratic countries, such as the United States, are reasonable to make sure the well-being of their people are granted by government. People agree with certain policies by voting for their makers as the leader of states or cities. To a certain extent, people improve well-being in the society by make suggestions or give opinions in the process of drawing a polity.
However, previous condition might be a simple one in reality. Actually, each factor of well-being is tightly correlated with others and even interdependent on other factors. Public might usually get confused when they hear that a seemly unreasonable decision would be made. Sometime they are enough calm to investigate whether it is the best plan, which means it is still in the right way. However, with the development of internet, public are passively received a huge quantity of information provided by the emerging mass media. The opinions of public are easily distorted and even misled. Recently in China, there is a famous legal case in which the criminal ought to be sentenced for several years. However, the followers of this case are irritated by the criminal’s irreverent attitude. So they insanely condemn the sentence of the local court on the website and received numerous supports on the internet. They constantly published the pitiful sight of victims for public’s sympathy, and rebuked the criminal’s impersonality, then applied pressure on the local court to change to a more severe sentence. Everyone were involved in eventually, ending up with the compromise of local court — the criminal was sentenced for longer years. But with the subsiding of the public’s fervor, someone started to point out that the angry people are impeding the judicial justice, leading to an unfair environment in society. This is a case that people question authority but cannot bring out any benefits, instead, it destroy the human rights and absolutely threaten the well-being of a society.
It seems complicated for the mass public to distinguish the appropriate way to question authority. However, this is a question that had confused us for hundreds of years. While time is improving, despite the impulse of technology, people are stepping forward too. We should always believe that the same weapon that can make us live better and protect us when we are feeling threatened is to challenge authority and defend ourselves. But the same important is to take good care of the rights in hands, even a restraint is a good way to safeguard our lives and thus make us live better.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 65, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...sue higher well-being by questioning and challenging authority, in order to makin...
^^
Line 1, column 348, Rule ID: BELIEVE_BELIEF[1]
Message: Did you mean 'beliefs' (noun) instead of believes (verb)?
Suggestion: beliefs
...ually, I fundamentally agree with their believes that well-being in our society will be ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1532, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'destroys'?
Suggestion: destroys
...not bring out any benefits, instead, it destroy the human rights and absolutely threate...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, however, if, so, still, then, therefore, thus, well, while, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 41.0 19.5258426966 210% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 22.0 14.8657303371 148% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 33.0505617978 124% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 75.0 58.6224719101 128% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3135.0 2235.4752809 140% => OK
No of words: 595.0 442.535393258 134% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26890756303 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.93888872473 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92715794832 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 306.0 215.323595506 142% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.514285714286 0.4932671777 104% => OK
syllable_count: 989.1 704.065955056 140% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 20.2370786517 143% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.2909027304 60.3974514979 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.103448276 118.986275619 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5172413793 23.4991977007 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.06896551724 5.21951772744 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 10.2758426966 156% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 5.13820224719 214% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.276677528532 0.243740707755 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.06736694686 0.0831039109588 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0690517167941 0.0758088955206 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.17651339324 0.150359130593 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0757550818062 0.0667264976115 114% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.1392134831 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.8420337079 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.1639044944 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.09 8.38706741573 108% => OK
difficult_words: 168.0 100.480337079 167% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.